INC. 

aw  Book  Publishers 
'1    MAIN    STREET 
BUFFALO  3,  N.  Y. 


T 
\%Z6 


UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LffiRARY 


PATENT    CASE    INDEX: 

CONTAINING 

LISTS    OF    ALL    THE    CASES    INVOLVING 
PATENTS   FOR   INVENTIONS 

AS    REPORTED    IN 

THE  STATE  AND   FEDEIJAL  REPORTS,  ROBBS  AXD  FISHER'S 

PATENT  CASES,  AND  THE  PATENT  OFFICE  GAZETTE, 

IP    TO    THE    PRESENT    TIME; 

TOOKTIIEU 

WITH    A    BlUEF    SYNOPSIS    OF   THE    LAW    POINTS    DECIDED, 
AKUANGEU   ALniAIJETldLLY. 


By  \V.  l\  PREBLE,  Jr., 

ATTORNEY    AT    LAW. 


<U 


BOSTON: 
LITTLE,   BROWN,    AND    COMPANY. 

1880. 


Copyright,  1880, 
By  W.  p.  Preble,  Jr. 

T 


University  Prrss: 
John  Wilson  and  Son,  Cambridge. 


CONTENTS. 


I.   A   List  of   the  Cases   involving   Patents  for  In- 
ventions,  ARRANGED   ALPHABETICALLY      .      .      Page  3 

II.  "An  Alphabetical  Synopsis  of  Law  Points  relating 
TO  Patents  for  Lvventions,  referring  to  the 
Cases  in  the  first  List 143 

III.  A   List    of    the    Lwentions    on  which    Suits   have 

been    decided,    with    References    to    the    first 
List 279 

IV.  An  Alphabetical  List  of  the   Defendants  in  the 

Cases  in  the  first  List        305 


PART    I. 

LIST     OF     CASES. 


PATENT    CASE    INDEX, 


PART    I. 
LIST     OF     CASES. 


Adams  v.  Burke.  Coffin-lids.  Article  sold  passes  out  of 
monopoly.  Infringement,  use  by  purchaser  outside  of 
limits  of  territorial  license.  1  Holmes,  40;  4  Fisher,  392; 
1  Off.  Gaz.  282. 

Adams  v.  Burke.  Coffin-lids.  Above  affirmed.  Right  to  use 
distinguished  from  right  to  make  and  sell.  What  sale  of 
patented  machine  implies.     17  Wall.  453. 

Adams  v.  £dwards.  Fire-proof  iron  safes.  What  substan- 
tially the  same  means.  What  invention  is.  Utility,  exten- 
sive use  as  evidence.  Abandonment,  causes  of.  Patent  is 
prima  facie  good.     Public  use  for  two  years.     1  Fisher,  1. 

Adams  v.  Joliet  Manufacturing  Co.  Corn-sheller.  Nov- 
elty. Technical  defects  in  patents.  Infringement,  com- 
bination, change  of  position  of  parts.  Better  work.  12 
Off.  Gaz.  93. 

Adams  v.  Jones.  Door-locks.  Abandonment,  involuntary 
delays.     Infringement,  colorable  alteration.     1  Fisher,  527. 

Adams  &  Westlake  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  St.  Louis 
Wire  Goods  Co.  Wire  sieve.  Infringement,  combina- 
tion, particular  patent.     12  Off.  Gaz.  940. 

Adamson  v.  Dedrick.  Soles  for  boots  and  shoes.  Particular 
patent  held  invalid.     2  Off.  Gaz.  523. 


4  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Adjustable  Window  Screen  Co.  v.  Boughton.  AVindow- 
screen.  Particular  patent,  too  broad  claims.  31  Leg.  Int.  254. 

Agawam  Company  v.  Jordan.  Wool  machine.  Infringe- 
ment, burden  of  proof.  Original  inventor.  Fraud  as  a  de- 
fence not  admissible  under  that  of  want  of  novelty.  Who 
is  entitled  to  a  patent.  Suggestions.  Allegation  of  public 
use,  notice  required  of  places,  &c.  Abandonment.  Re- 
issue not  for  same  invention.     7  Wall.  583. 

Aiken  v.  Bemis.  Saw-set.  Motion  for  new  trial,  excessive 
damages,  against  weight  of  evidence,  newly  discovered 
evidence,  costs,  nonsuit  for  a  variance.  Right  to  cross- 
examine.     3  W.  &  M.  348;  2  Robb,  644. 

Aiken  v.  Dolan.  Knitting-needles.  Conditional  assignments. 
Title  to  sue.  Patentability  in  general.  Extensions,  fair 
profit.  Disclaimer.  Infringement,  substantial  equivalents. 
3  Fisher,  197. 

Aiken  v.  Manchester  Print  Works.  Knitting-needles. 
Sale  gives  right  to  use  and  repair,  but  not  to  make  new 
ones.     When  State  court  is  proper  tribunal.     2  Cliff.  435. 

Albright  v.  Celluloid  Harness  Trimming  Co.  Harness. 
Abandoned  experiments.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention. 
Infringement,  experimental  making  and  use.  12  Off.  Gaz. 
227. 

Alden  v.  Dewey.  Scythe-snaths.  Evidence,  defendant's  ma- 
chine better.  Excessive  damages.  Effect  of  oath  of  in- 
ventor.    1  Story,  336;  2  Robb,  17. 

Allen  V.  Blunt.  Fire-arms.  Reissue  jonma /arte  right.  Ex- 
perts as  witnesses.     3  Story,  742;  2  Robb,  288. 

Allen  v.  Blunt.  Fire-arms.  Motion  for  new  trial,  evidence, 
excessive  damages.  Reissue  presumed  legal.  What  consti- 
tutes/rs<  invention.     2  W.  &  M.  121;  2  Robb,  530. 

Allen  v.  Blunt.  Fire-arms.  New  trial.  Service  of  suhpoena. 
Jurisdiction,  not  citizenship  but  subject-matter.  1  Blatch. 
480. 

Allen  v.  City  of  Brooklyn.  Seats  for  public  buildings. 
City  not  liable  for  use  of  patented  article  by  its  school  com- 
mittee.    4  Fisher,  598. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  5 

Allex  v.  Hunter.  Metallic  plates.  Patent  is  prima  facie 
evidence.  Patents  void  on  their  face  for  uncertainty.  Real 
relation  of  inventors  to  the  public.  Construction  of  patents. 
6  McLean,  303. 

Allen  v.  Sprague.  Fire-arms.  Preliminary  injunction,  prior 
decisions  at  law.  lleissue  not  for  same  invention.  1 
Blatch.  567. 

American  Cotton  Tie  Co.  v.  Simons.  Bale  ties.  Sale  of 
patented  article  takes  it  out  of  the  monopoly  of  the  patent, 
13  Off.  Gaz.  967. 

American  Diamond  Rock  Boring  Co.  v.  Sullivan  Com- 
pany. Rock-drill.  Infringement,  colorable  alteration. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Want  of  novelty.  Pre- 
liminary injunctions.     14  Blatch.  119. 

American  Hide  and  Leather  Splitting  and  Dressing 
Machine  Co.  v.  American  Tool  and  Machine  Co. 
Hides  and  leather.  Public  use  for  two  years.  Abandon- 
ment. Notice  of  defense.  Instructions  to  juries.  1  Holmes, 
503 ;  4  Fisher,  284. 

American  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Lane.  Umbrellas.  In- 
fringement, particular  patent.  14  Blatch.  438;  15  Off.  Gaz. 
421. 

American  Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v.  Atlantic  Middlings 
Co.  Flour  process.  Preliminary  injunctions.  Previous 
decisions.  Invalidity  of  patent.  Infringement.  4  Dillon, 
100. 

American  Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v.  Atlantic  Middlings 
Co.  Flour.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  15  Off.  Gaz. 
467. 

American  Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v.  Christian.  Flour 
process.  Preliminary  injunctions.  Hearing  on  bill  and 
affidavits.     Previous  decisions  ou  patent.     4  Dillon,  448. 

American  Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  City  of  Elizabeth. 
Wood  pavement.  Preliminary  injunction,  previous  judg- 
ments. Original  inventor.  Infringement,  colorable  al- 
teration.    4  Fisher,  189. 


b  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

American  Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  City  of  Elizabeth. 
Wood  pavement.  Original  inventor.  Want  of  novelty. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Public  use.  Infringement, 
combination,  additions.     6  Fisher,  424;  3  Off.  Gaz.  522. 

American  Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  City  of  Elizabeth. 
Wood  pavement.  Exceptions  to  Master's  report.  Im- 
provements by  defendant  charged  and  allowed.  License 
fee.     6  Off.  Gaz.  764. 

American  Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  Hatch.  Wood  pave- 
ment. Infringement,  combination  of  two  things  not  by  one 
and  a  third.     3  Fisher,  432. 

American  Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  Jenkins.  Wood  pave- 
ment. Assignment  of  patent,  what  expression  "  term  for 
■which  are  or  may  be  granted"  carries.  14  Wall.  452; 
5  Fisher,  491;  1  Off.  Gaz.  465. 

American  Pin  Co.  v.  Oakville  Co.  Pins.  Infringement, 
different  means  of  getting  same  result.     3  Blatch.  190. 

American  Saddle  Co.  v.  Hogg.  Saddle-pad.  Notice  of 
defense.  Prior  patent  not  mentioned  in  answer,  only 
admitted  to  show  state  of  art.  1  Holmes,  133;  5  Fisher, 
353;  2  Off.  Gaz.  59. 

American  Saddle  Co.  v.  Hogg.  Saddle-pad.  Motion  for  re- 
hearing. Agreement  of  counsel  to  admit  evidence  not  set 
up  in  answer.  1  Holmes,  177;  6  Fisher,  67;  2  Off.  Gaz. 
595. 

American  Shoe  Tip  Co.  v.  National  Shoe  Toe  Protector 
Co.  Boots  and  shoes.  Preliminary  injunction,  long  acqui- 
escence, previous  decisions.  Disclaimer  by  mistake.  In- 
fringement.    11  Off.  Gaz.  740. 

American  Whip  Co.  v.  Lombard.  Gage  lathe.  Original 
inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Infringement,  com- 
bination, substantial  equivalents.     14  Off.  Gaz.  900. 

American  Wood  Paper  Co.  v.  Fibre  Disintegrating  Co. 
Wood  pulp.  Original  inventor.  Infringement,  lower 
pressure  in  process.     6  Blatch.  27;  3  Fisher,  362. 

American  Wood  Paper  Co.  v.  Fibre  Disintegrating  Co. 
(See  Wood  Paper  Patent.) 


LIST    OF    CASES.  7 

American  Wood  Paper  Co.  v.  Glen  Falls  Paper  Co. 
Wood  pulp.  Extension  of  patents  is  judicial  act,  and  not 
to  be  impeached  collaterally.     8  Blatch.  513;  4  Fisher,  324. 

American  Wood  Paper  Co.  v.  Glen  Falls  Paper  Co. 
Wood  pulp.  Rehearing.  Statute  for  filling  vacancies. 
8  Blatch.  518;  4  Fisher,  561. 

American  Wood  Paper  Co.  v.  Heft.  Wood  pulp.  Invalid 
reissues.  Infringement,  lower  pressure  in  process.  3 
Fisher,  316. 

American  Wood  Paper  Co.  v.  Heft.  Wood  pulp.  Appeal 
dismissed,  plaintiffs  owning  both  sides  of  the  litigation. 
8  Wall.  333. 

Ames  v.  Howard.  Paper.  Liberal  construction  of  patents. 
New  trial,  surprise,  evidence.  1  Sumner,  482;  I  Robb, 
689. 

Andrews  v.  Carman.  Wells.  Particular  patent,  utility. 
Patentability.  Construction  of  patents.  Original  inventor. 
Prior  use.  Abandonment.  13  Blatch.  307;  9  Off.  Gaz. 
1011. 

Andrews  v.  Denslow.  Wells.  Motion  to  set  aside  a  decree 
taken  pro  confesso  regularly  obtained.  Denied.  14  Blatch. 
182. 

Andrews  V.  Spear.  Wells.  Preliminary  injunction.  4  Dillon, 
472. 

Andrews  v.  Wright.  Wells.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion.    Want  of  novelty.     Patentability.     13  Off.  Gaz.  969. 

Annunciator  Co.     (See  United  States  Annunciator  Co.) 

Anthony  v.  Carroll.  Paper  pulp.  Demurrer.  Statute  of 
Limitations.     9  Off.  Gaz.  199. 

Appleton  I'.  Bacon.  Paper  folding.  Bill  for  surrender  of  a 
patent  issued  to  wrong  man.     2  Black,  699. 

Arkell  v.  Hurd  Paper  Bag  Co.  Paper  bags.  Infringement, 
particular  patent.     7  Blatch.  475. 

Armstrong  v.  Hanlenbeck.  Cutlery  polisher.  Assignments 
and  licenses  distinguished.     3  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  43. 


0  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Asbestos  Felting  Co.  v.  United  States  and  Foreign  Sal- 
amander Felting  Co.  Felting.  Senior  and  junior  pat- 
ents. Injunctions  against  suits  under  patents  not  yet 
declared  invalid.     13  Blatch.  453;  10  Off.  Gaz.  828. 

AsHCROFT  V.  Boston  and  Lowell  Railroad.  Steam  safety- 
valves.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Original  inventor. 
Infringement.     1  Holmes,  366;  5  Off.  Gaz.  725. 

Ashcroft  v.  Boston  and  Lowell  Railroad.  Steam  safety- 
valves.  Infringement,  particular  patent.  Above  affirmed. 
7  Otto,  189;  13  Off.  Gaz.  865. 

Ashcroft  v.  Cutter.  Pencils.  Original  inventor,  particular 
patent.     6  Blatch.  511. 

Ashcroft  v.  Rollings.  Lamps.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringe- 
ment, particular  patent.     11  Off.  Gaz.  879. 

Ashcroft  v.  Walworth.  Pipe  tongs.  Infringement.  Con- 
veyance under  insolvent  law  of  Massachusetts.  1  Holmes, 
152;   5  Fisher,  528;  2  Off.  Gaz.  546. 

Atlantic  Giant  Poavder  Co.  v.  California  Powder 
Works.  Explosives.  Reissues  not  for  same  inventions. 
3  Sawyer,  448. 

Atlantic  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  California  Powder 
Works.  Explosives.  Reissue  must  be  for  same  inven- 
tion. Power  of  commissioner.  Demurrers  to  whole  bill 
and  to  part.     8  Otto,  126.     15  Off.  Gaz.  289. 

Atlantic  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  Goodyear.  Explosives. 
Infringement,  combination.  Preliminary  injunction,  same 
question  pending  in  other  circuits.     13  Off.  Gaz.  45. 

Atlantic  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  Mowbray.  Explosives. 
Infringement,  combination,  mere  substitute.  12  Off.  Gaz. 
iii.,  Oct.  2. 

Atlantic  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  Townsend.  Explosives. 
Infringement,  combination.  Preliminary  injunction,  same 
questions  pending  in  other  circuits.     13  Off.  Gaz.  45. 

Atterbury  v.  Gill.  Jelly-glass.  Survivor  of  actions  for 
infringement.     13  Off.  Gaz.  276. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  9 

Attokxey-Gexeral  ex  rel.  Hecker  v.  Rumford  Chemical 

Works.    Pulverulent  acid.    Proceedings  to  vacate  patents. 

Relation  of  patentee  to  public.     Jurisdiction.     9  Off.  Gaz. 

1062. 
AuLTMAX  V.  HoLLEY.     Harvester.    Want  of  parties.     Reissue 

not  for  same   invention.      Infringement,   same  principle. 

Want  of  novelty.     11  Blatch.  317;   6  Fisher,  534;   5  Off. 

Gaz.  3.1 
Avery    v.    Bushnell.      Self-operator.       Replevin,    patented 

machine.     Contract  to  pay  price.     123  Mass.  349. 
Ayxing  v.  Hull.     Caoutchouc.     Original  inventor.     Suit  too 

soon  after  issue.     Reasonable  diligence.     2  Cliff.  494. 

B. 

Bachelder  v.  Moultox.     Sewing-machines.      Infringement, 

particular  patent.     11  Blatch.  304;  6  Fisher,  488;  4  Off. 

Gaz.  501. 
Badisciie  Axilix  axd  Soda  Fabrik  v.  Hamiltox  Maxu- 

f.\cturixg  Co.    Alizarine.    Expiration  of  foreign  patents. 

Reissue  not  for  same  invention.     13  Off.  Gaz.  273. 

Badische  Axilix  axd  Soda  Fabrik  v.  Higgix.  Alizarine. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringe- 
ment, same  result,  different  process.     14  Off.  Gaz.  414. 

Bailey  Washixg  axd  Wringixg  Machine  Co.  v.  Lixcolx. 
Clothes-wringer.  Danger  of  reissues.  Want  of  novelty. 
Infringement,  combination.     4  Fisher,  379. 

Bain  v.  Morse.  Telegrajih.  Interfering  patents,  decision  of 
commissioner.  What  interference  is.  Importance  of  form 
and  structure.     6  West.  L.  J.  372. 

Baker  v.  Masox.  Planing-machine.  Covenant,  interpretation 
of.     3  R.  I.  45. 

Baldwix  1'.  Berxhard.  Ilats,  bonnets,  &c.  Affidavits  taken 
before  bill  filed,  withholding  injunction  when  defendant 
will  take  license.  5  Fisher,  442;  2  Off.  Gaz.  320;  9  Blatch. 
509,  note. 

1  Fullest  report  of  case. 


10  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Baldwin  v.  Schultz.  Hats,  bonnets,  &c.  Reissues,  infringe- 
ment. Rehearing.  9  Blatch.  494;  5  Fisher,  75;  2  Off. 
Gaz.  317. 

Baldwin  v.  Sibley.  Shoe-peg  machine.  Assignments  of 
patents.  Parol  declarations  of  patentees.  Evidence.  1 
ClifEord,  150. 

Ball  v.  Bailie.  Ovens.  Construction  of  particular  patent. 
6  Off.  Gaz.  933. 

Ball  v.  Murry.  Lock.  Debt  on  bond.  Assignment.  Who 
is  entitled  to  a  patent.     10  Penn.  St.  111. 

Ball  v.  Withington.  Ovens.  Construction  of  particular 
patent.     6  Off.  Gaz.  933. 

Bancroft  v.  Acton.  Damages,  statute,  counsel  fees.  7  Blatch. 
505. 

Bantz  v.  Elsas.  Furnaces.  Infringement,  combination. 
Original  inventor.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  6  Off. 
Gaz.  117. 

Barclay  v.  Thayer.  Bracelets.  Infringement,  particular 
patent.     12  Blatch,  107;  6  Off.  Gaz.  2. 

Barker  v,  Stowe.  Chain  pumps.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention. Want  of  novelty.  Infringement.  14  Off.  Gaz. 
559. 

Barnard  v.  Gibson.  Wood  worth's  planing-machine.  Appeals 
can  be  taken  only  from  final  decrees.     7  Howard,  650. 

Barnes  v.  Morgan.  Assignment,  and  what  it  means.  3 
Hun  (N.  y.),  703;  6  Thomp.  &  Cook  (N.  Y.),  105. 

Barnes  v.  Straus.  Corset  springs.  Want  of  novelty,  par- 
ticular patent.  9  Blatch.  553;  5  Fisher,  531;  2  Off.  Gaz. 
62. 

Barrett  v.  Hall.  Dyeing  cloth.  Experts  as  witnesses. 
Joint  patents.  Patents  in  general.  Want  of  novelty.  1 
Mason,  447;  1  Robb,  207. 

Barry  v.  Everett.  Tin-can  machine.  Inventor  must  claim 
the  features  of  his  model  to  protect  them.  5  Fisher,  452; 
1  Off.  Gaz.  382. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  11 

Barry  v.  Gugenheim.  Tin-can  machine.  Inventor  must 
claim  the  features  of  his  model  to  protect  them.  5  Fisher, 
452;  1  Off.  Gaz.  382. 

Bartholomew  v.  Sawyer.  Valve-cocks.  Motion  for  new 
trial.  Evidence  under  general  issue.  4  Blatch.  347;  1 
Fisher,  516. 

Bates  v.  Coe.  Drilling-machines.  Special  defenses  under 
general  issue.  AVhat  these  defenses  are.  Printed  publica- 
tions. Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Inventions  may  be 
kept  secret.  Burden  of  proof  of  infringement.  Defenses 
not  set  up  in  answer.     8  Otto,  31 ;  15  Off.  Gaz.  337. 

Batten  v.  Kear.  Coal-breaker.  Quantum  valebant  for  use  of 
patented  invention.  United  States  courts  have  exclusive 
jurisdiction.     2  Phila.  (Penn.)  301. 

Batten  v.  Silliman.  Coal-breaker.  Injunctions,  prior  de- 
cisions, acquiescence.     3  Wall.  Jr.  124. 

Batten  v.  Taggert.  Coal-breaker.  Abandonment.  Inventor 
of  part  claiming  the  whole.     2  Wall.  Jr.  101. 

Batten  v.  Taggert.  Coal-breaker.  Combination  of  what  he 
invented  and  what  he  did  not.  Claiming  the  whole.  17 
How.  74. 

Baw  v.  Hawkins.     (See  La  Baw  v.  Hawkins.) 

Bean  v.  Smallwood.  Rocking-chair.  Old  thing  to  new  pur- 
pose, not  patentable.     2  Story,  408;  2  Robb,  133. 

Beane  v.  Orr.     License,  fraud.     9  Off.  Gaz.  255. 

Bedford  v.  Hunt.  Boots,  &c.  What  utility  is.  First  in- 
ventor defined.     1  Mason,  302;  1  Robb,  148. 

Belding  v.  Turner.  Sewing-silk.  Assignability  of  license. 
8  Blatch.  321 ;  4  Fisher,  446. 

Bell  v.  Bonney.  Biscuit-machine.  Sale  of  machine  which 
infringes  ^  patent.     Suit  to  recover  price.    7  La.  Ann.  170. 

Bell  v.  Daniels.  Steam-boilers.  Defective  specification. 
Utility.  Public  use.  Effect  of  caveats.  Abandonment. 
1  Bond,  212;  1  Fisher,  372. 

Bell  v.  McCulloch.  Steam-boilers.  Verbal  license.  In- 
creasing damages.     1  Bond,  194 ;  1  Fisher,  380. 


12  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Bell  Manufacturing  Co.  (See  Gong-Bell  Manufactur- 
ing Co.) 

Bellas  v.  Hays.  Steam-boiler.  Writ  of  error.  Contract, 
executed  by  attorney,  lack  of  consideration.  5  S.  &  R. 
(Penn.)  427. 

Bennet  v.  Fowler.  Hay  elevator.  Motion  for  new  trial. 
What  a  single  patent  may  cover.     8  Wall.  445. 

Berdan  Fire-arm  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Remington. 
Fire-arms.  Improvement  by  workman  in  construction  of 
model.     3  Off.  Gaz.  688. 

Berger  v.  Peterson.     Key-coupling  instruments.     Contract. 

Evidence  in  chancery.     Offer  to  pay,  as  a  defense.     78  111. 

633. 
Bevin  v.  East   Hampton   Bell   Co.     Metallurgic  furnaces. 

Two  years'  prior  use.     Abandonment.      9  Blatch.   50;   5 

Fishei,  23. 

Bicknell  v.  Todd.  Woodworth's  planing-machine.  Injunc- 
tions.    License.     5  McLean,  236. 

Bierce  v.  Stocking.  Lamps.  Note,  worthless  patent.  Com- 
petency of  expert.     11  Gray  (Mass.),  174. 

Bigelow  v.  City  of  Louisville.  Wood  pavement.  Effect  of 
release  of  those  primarily  liable.     3  Fisher,  602. 

Bigelow  v.  Matthews.  Soda-water.  Infringement,  par- 
ticular patent.     7  Blatch.  77. 

Billings  v.  Ames.  Putting  up  hams.  State  jurisdiction 
where  patents  are  brought  in  collaterally.  Contracts  in 
restraint  of  trade.  Measure  of  damages,  depreciation  of 
price.     32  Mo.  265. 

Binney  v.  Annan.  Paper  bags.  Assignment  of  patent  com- 
pelled.    107  Mass.  94. 

BiRDSALL  V.  Coolidge.  Amalgamator.  Damages,  estab- 
lished royalty.    Infringement.    3  Otto,  64;  10  Off.  Gaz.  748. 

BiRDSELL  V.  Ashland  Machine  Co.  Clover-machine.  Aban- 
donment. Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Want  of 
novelty.     Infringement,  combination.     6  Off.  Gaz.  682. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  13 

BiKDSELL  V.  HaGERSTOWN  AGRICULTURAL  IMPLEMENT  MANU- 
FACTURING Co.  Clover-iiiacliine.  Preliminary  injunctions. 
Previous  decisions.     Additional  evidence.     G  Off.  Gaz.  604. 

BiRDSELL  V.  HaGERSTOWN  AGRICULTURAL  IMPLEMENT  MANU- 
FACTURING Co.  Clover-machine.  Contempt.  Violation 
of  injunction.     1  Hughes,  59;  11  Off.  Gaz.  420. 

BiRDSELL  V.  HaGERSTOWN  AGRICULTURAL  IMPLEMENT  MANU- 
FACTURING Co.  Clover-machine.  Motion  to  enjoin  plain- 
tiffs from  suing  defendant's  vendees,  granted.  1  Hughes, 
64;  11  Off.  Gaz.  641. 

BiRDSELL  V.  McDonald.  Clover-machine.  Abandonment. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Want  of  novelty.  In- 
fringement, combination.     6  Off.  Gaz.  682. 

BiRDSELL  V.  Perego.  Clover-machine.  Contract.  Demurrer 
to  pleas.     5  Blatch.  251. 

BiSHCHOFF  17.  Wethered.  Steam  generator.  Judgment  in  Eng- 
lish Court  of  Common  Pleas.  Experts  as  witnesses.  9 
Wall.  812. 

Black  v.  Hubbard.  Furnace.  Right  to  use,  how  acquired. 
12  Off.  Gaz.  842. 

Black  v.  Munsen.  Furnace.  Exceptions  to  Master's  report, 
rule  of  damages.     14  Blatch.  265. 

Black  v.  Stone.  Water-wheel.  Recording  assignments. 
Equitable  relief,  mistake.  Equity  jurisdiction,  full  legal 
remedy.     33  Ala.  327. 

Black  v.  Thorne.  Furnace,  Reissue  not  for  same  invention. 
Want  of  novelty.  Infringement.  10  Blatch.  66 ;  5  Fisher, 
550;  2  Off.  Gaz.  388. 

Black  r.  Thorne.  Furnace,  Master's  report.  Account  of 
profits.     Evidence.     12  Blatch.  20;  7  Off.  Gaz.  176. 

Black  v.  Wells.  Furnace.  Exceptions  to  blaster's  report, 
rule  of  damages.     14  Blatch.  265. 

Blaisdell  v.  Tufts,  Soda-water  apparatus.  Construction  of 
patent,  limited  by  state  of  the  art.     15  Off.  Gaz.  881. 

Blake  v.  E.\gle  Works  Manufacturing  Co.  Stone-breaker. 
Testimony  of  single  witness  on  anticipation.  3  BisseU,  77; 
4  Fisher,  591. 


14  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Blake  v.  Greenwood  Cemetery.  Stone-breaker.  Prelim- 
inary injunction.  License.  14  Blatch.  3i2;  13  Off.  Gaz. 
1046. 

Blake  v.  Rawson.  Stone-breaker.  Abandoned  experiments. 
Merits  opened  by  motion  for  injunction.  1  Holmes,  200; 
6  Fisher,  74;  3  Off.  Gaz.  122. 

Blake  V.  RoBERTSOX.  Stone-breaker.  Preliminary  injunction. 
Prior  decisions.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  com- 
bination.    6  Off.  Gaz.  297;  6  Fisher,  509. 

Blake  v.  Robertson.  Stone-breaker.  Infringement,  com- 
bination, particular  patent.     11  Blatch.  237. 

Blake  v.  Robertson.  Stone-breaker.  Utility.  Want  of 
novelty.  Infringement,  combination.  Cross-appeals.  4 
Otto,  728;  11  Off.  Gaz.  877. 

Blake  v.  Sperry.  Bed-castors.  Want  of  novelty,  particular 
patent.     2  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  251. 

Blake  v.  Stafford.  Stone-breaker.  Reissue  not  for  same 
invention.  Fraud.  Infringement,  combination,  old  ele- 
ments. New  trial.  Want  of  novelty.  6  Blatch.  195;  3 
Fisher,  295. 

Blakenay  v.  Goode.  Water-wheel.  Ohio  law  on  assignments 
of  patents.     30  Ohio  St.  350. 

Blanchard  v.  Beers.  Lathe  for  turning  in-egular  forms. 
Extensions  by  Congress.  Infringement,  combination. 
2  Blatch.  411. 

Blanchard  v.  Eldridge.  Lathe,  irregular  forms.  Assign- 
ments of  patents.  Parties  to  sue.  1  Wall.  Jr.  337;  2  Robb, 
737. 

Blanchard  v.  Haynes.  Lathe.  Effect  of  extensions  by 
special  act.     6  West.  L.  J.  82. 

Blanchard  v.  Puttman.  Wood-bending  machine.  Patents 
are  prima  facie  good  whether  held  by  plaintiff  or  defendant. 
2  Bond,  84;  3  Fisher,  186. 

Blanchard  v.  Puttman.  Wood-bending  machine.  Original 
inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Infringement. 
Reverses  above.     8  Wall.  420. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  15 

Blanchard  v.  Reeves.  Lathe,  irregular  forms.  Prelim- 
inary injunctions,  prior  decisions,  infringement.  1  Fisher, 
103. 

Blanchard  v.  Sprague.  Lathe,  irregular  forms.  Construc- 
tion of  patents.  Constitutionality  of  act  of  1839.  3  Sum- 
ner, 535;  1  Robb,  734;  s.  c.  2  Story,  164,  and  1  Robb, 
742. 

Blanchard  v.  Sprague.  Lathe,  irregular  forms.  Parties  as 
witnesses.     License.     1  Cliff.  288. 

Blanchard  r.  Whitney,  Lathe,  irregular  forms.  Sale  of 
machine.     Extended  patent.     3  Blatch.  307. 

Blanchard  Gunstock  Turning  Factory  v.  Jacobs.  Lathe, 
irregular  forms.  Motion  to  set  aside  verdict,  evidence. 
2  Blatch.  69. 

Blanchard  Gunstock  Turning  Factory  v.  Warner. 
Lathe,  irregular  forms.  Motion  for  new  trial.  Effect  of 
assignments  on  extended  patents.  Infringement.  1  Blatch. 
258. 

Bland,  Ex  parte.  Sewing-machine.  Right  of  foreign  patentee 
to  be  free  from  interferences.     15  Off.  Gaz.  828. 

Blandy  v.  Griffeth.  Steam-engines.  Prior  judgment.  Orig- 
inal inventor.     Public  use.     Infringement.     3  Fisher,  609. 

Blandy  v.  Griffeth.  Steam-engines.  Petition  to  file  supple- 
mental bill  in  nature  of  bill  of  review.  Counter  affidavits. 
Cumulative  testimony.     6  Fisher,  434. 

Blank  ».  Manufacturing  Co.  Sickles.  Account  without 
injunction.     Jurisdiction.     3  Wall.  Jr.  196. 

Bliss  v.  City  of  Brooklyn.  Hose-couplings.  Illegal  attempt 
of  State  to  let  the  city  use  without  pay.  8  Blatch.  533 ;  4 
Fisher,  596. 

Bliss  v.  City  of  Brooklyn.  Hose-couplings.  Utility.  Re- 
issue not  for  same  invention.  10  Blatch.  521 ;  6  Fisher, 
289;  3  Off.  Gaz.  269. 

Bliss  v.  Gaylord  Patent  Coupling  and  Manufacturing 

Co.     Hose-couplings.     Reissue  not  for  same  invention.     7 
Blatch.  279. 


16  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Bliss  v.  Haight.  Hose-couplings.  Infringement,  thing  with 
two  functions  not  by  one  with  one  function.  7  Blatch.  7 ; 
3  Fisher,  621. 

Bliss  v.  Negus.  Frescoing.  Promissory  note  for  a  void  patent. 
8  Mass.  46. 

Bloomer  v.  Gilpin.    Woodworth's  planing-macliine.     License 

transferred.     Jurisdiction.     4  Fisher,  50. 
Bloomer    v.     McQuewan.      AVoodworth's     planing-machine. 

Machine  bought  before  extension.    Construction  of  statute. 

14  Howard,  539. 
Bloomer     v.     Millenger.      Woodworth's    planing-machine. 

Machine  bought  before  extension.      Rights  of  patentees. 

Rights  of  purchasers.     1  Wall.  340. 

Bloomer  v.  Stolly.  Woodworth's  planing-machine.  Motion 
to  dissolve  injunction.  Extension  void,  operates  prospec- 
tively only.     License.     5  McLean,  158. 

Boomer  v.  United  Power  Press  Co.  Cheese-presses.  Re- 
issue not  for  same  invention,  worthless.  Want  of  novelty. 
Damages.     13  Blatch.  107. 

Booth  v.  Parks.  Grain  separator.  Patentable  combinations. 
6  Chicago  Legal  News,  407. 

Boston  Elastic  Fabric  Co.     (See  Elastic  Fabric  Co.) 

Boston  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Fiske.  Cotton  speeder. 
Counsel  fees  allowed  by  jury  as  actual  damages.  2  Mason, 
119;  1  Robb,  320. 

Boston  and  Fair  Haven  Iron  Works  v.  Montague. 
Printing-presses.  Chattel  mortgage,  equity  jurisdiction. 
108  Mass.  248. 

Bourne  v.  Goodyear.  Bill  to  vacate  extension  already  ex- 
pired.    9  Wall.  811. 

BowKER  V.  Dows.  Mineral  waters.  Infringement,  combina- 
tion, sale  of  materials.     Patentability.     15  Off.  Gaz.  510. 

BoYCE  V.  Dorr.  Water-wheels.  Infringement  by  employe. 
3  McLean,  582;  2  Robb,  302. 

Boyd  v.  Brown.  Bedsteads.  What  patents  protect.  Terri- 
torial rights.     3  McLean,  295;  2  Robb,  203. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  17 

Boyd  v.  McAlpin.  Bedsteads.  Recording  assignments.  In- 
fringement, sale  of  product  of  patented  machine.  3  Mc- 
Lean, 427;  2  Robb.  277. 

BoYDEN  z'.  Burke.  Furnishing  copies  of  patents.  Exceptions. 
Evidence.  General  instructions  to  jury.  Refusal  to  furnish 
copies  held  indefensible.     14  Howard,  575. 

Brady  v.  Atlantic  Works.  Dredges.  Original  inventor. 
Fraud.     Infringement  by  government.     10  Off.  Gaz.  702. 

Brady  v.  Atlantic  Works.  Dredges.  Gains  and  profits 
the  proper  measure  of  damages.  Master  may  examine 
books,  &c.     15  Off.  Gaz.  965. 

Brammer  v.  Jones.  Stave-machine.  Motion  to  dissolve  in- 
junetion.  Lack  of  interest.  License.  2  Bond,  100;  3 
Fisher,  340. 

Brandon  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Prime.  Cross-bill.  Juris- 
diction.    New  parties  by  cross-bill.     14  Blatch.  371. 

Brass  Go.     (See  Waterbury  Brass  Co.) 

Bray  v.  Hartshorn.  Curtains.  Motion  for  new  trial.  Pat- 
entability. Bad  and  ambiguous  patent.  Verdict  against 
evidence.     1  Cliff.  538. 

Bridge  v.  Brown.  Tan  bark.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion. Original  inventor.  Want  of  novelty.  1  Holmes, 
53 ;  6  Fisher,  236. 

Bridge  v.  Brown.  Tan  bark.  Infringement,  combination, 
omitting  one  element.     3  Off.  Gaz.  121. 

Bridge  Co.     (See  Keystone  Bridge  Co.) 

Brodie  v.  Ophir  Silver  Mining  Co.  Amalgamator.  Orig- 
inal inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Rule  of  dam- 
ages.    4  Fisher,  137. 

Brooks  v.  Bicknell.  Woodworth's  planing-mivchme.  De- 
fective specification.  Effect  of  answer  prematurely  filed. 
Affidavits  in  support  of  bill.  Illegal  extension.  Infringe- 
ment.    3  McLean,  250;  2  Robb,  118. 

Brooks    v.   Bicknell.     Woodworth's   planing-macbine.      As- 
signment, effect  of,  by  statute.     4  McLean,  64. 
2 


18  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

Brooks  t'.  BiCKXELL.  Woodworth's  planing-machine.  Motion 
for  new  trial.  Renewal  of  patents.  Assignments.  Suffi- 
ciency of  specifications.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement, 
combination.     4  McLean,  70. 

Brooks  v.  Byam.  Matches.  Assignment.  License.  Appor- 
tionment.    2  Story,  525;  2  Robb,  161. 

Brooks  v.  Fiske.  Woodworth's  planing-machine.  Want  of 
novelty.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Infringement. 
Three  judges  dissented.     15  Howard,  212. 

Brooks  v.  Morehouse.     Buttoner.     Original  inventor.     Prior 

public  use.     Estoppel  by  contract  to  contest  the  validity  of 

the  patent.     13  Off.  Gaz.  499. 
Brooks  v.  Norcross.     Woodworth's  planing-machine.     Juries 

in  chancery  practice.     Original  inventor,     French  patents. 

Infringement.     2  Fisher,  661. 

Brooks  v.  Stolley.  Woodworth's  planing-machine.  Juris- 
diction in  case  of  license.  Conditional  assignments.  Can- 
celling contracts.     3  McLean,  523;  2  Robb,  281. 

Brown  v.  Duchesne.  Gaffs  for  vessels.  Patented  articles 
used  in  France  for  French  vessel  coming  here  not  in  our 
jurisdiction.     2  Curtis,  371. 

Brown  v.  Duchesne.  Gaffs  for  vessels.  Same  as  above.  In- 
terpi-etation  of  our  laws.  Above  affirmed.  19  Howard, 
183. 

Brown  v.  Guild.  Corn-planter.  Original  inventor.  Want 
of  novelty.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Fraud.  In- 
fringement, combination.     23  Wall.  181;  6  Off.  Gaz.  392. 

Brown  v.  Hall.     Paint-cans.      Original  inventor.     Want  of 

novelty.     Notice  of  defense  in  answer.     6  Blatch.  401;  3 

Fisher,  531. 
Brown  v.    Hinkley.     Hand-cars   for  railways.     Preliminary 

injunction,   denied,    short   time   since   reissue.     6  Fisher, 

370;  3  Off.  Gaz.  381. 

Brown  v.  Piper.  Preserving  fish.  Patentability,  old  process 
to  new  purpose.  State  of  art  admissible  under  general 
issue.     Judicial  cognizance.     1  Otto,  37 ;  10  Off.  Gaz.  417. 


TJST    OF     CASES.  19 

Brown  v.  Rubber  Step  Manufacturing  Co.  Rubber  door- 
mat.    Infringement,  same  function.     13  Off.  Gaz.  369. 

Brown  v.  Selby.  Seed-planter.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion, claim  cut  down.  Infringement,  combination.  2 
Bissell,  457;  4  Fisher,  363. 

Brown  v.  Selby.  Corn-planter.  Original  inventor.  Want  of 
novelty.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Fraud.  In- 
fringement, combination.  Above  reversed.  23  Wall.  181 ; 
6  Off.  Gaz.  392. 

Brown  v.  Shanxon.  Woodworth's  planing-machine.  Juris- 
diction, contract.     Assignment.     20  Howard,  55. 

Bkown  r.  Whittemore.  Hay-rakes.  Public  use.  State  of  art. 
Infringement,  combination.    5  Fisher,  524;  2  Off.  Gaz.  248. 

Brown  v.  Wright.  Medicine.  Bond,  void  patent,  no  con- 
sideration.    17  Ark.  9. 

Bruff  v.  Ives.  Curved  augers.  Want  of  novelty,  particular 
patent.     14  Blatch.  198;  11  Off.  Gaz.  924. 

Bryce  v.  Dorr  (should  be  Boyce  v.  Dorr,  (].  v.). 

Buchanan  v.  Howland.  Paper  pulp.  Patents  in  law  or  equity. 
Juries  in  patent  causes.  Want  of  novelty.  Original  in- 
ventor. Utility.  Infringement,  substantially  same  process. 
5  Blatch.  151  (only  half  of  it)  ;  2  Fisher,  341. 

Buck  v.  Cobb.  Cooking-stove.  Joinder  of  parties.  Burden 
of  proof.     9  Law  Rep.  545. 

Buck  v.  Gill.  Cooking-stove.  Infringement,  combination, 
particular  patent.     4  McLean,  174;  2  Robb,  510. 

Buck  v.  Hermance.  Cooking-stove.  New  trial,  rejection  of 
evidence.     Parties  as  witnesses.     1  Blatch.  322. 

Buck  r.  Hermance.  Cooking-stove.  Construction  of  patents. 
Want  of  novelty,  combination.  Original  inventor.  In- 
fringement, combination.     1  Blatch.  398. 

Buerk  v.  Imhauser.  Watchman's  time-detector.  Infringe- 
ment, combination,  particular  patent.     5  Off.  Gaz.  752. 

Buerk  i\  Imhauser.  Watchman's  time-detector.  Xew  trials. 
Affidavits  not  entitled.    Power  of  notaries.    10  Off.  Gaz.  907. 

Buerk  v.  Imhauser.  Watchman's  time-detector.  Master's  re- 
port.    Rule  of  damages.     14  Blatch.  19 ;  10  Off.  Gaz.  907. 


20  PATENT    CASE    INDEX, 

BuERK  V.  Imhauser.     Watchman's  time-detector.     Contempt, 

sale  of  ai-ticles  undei'  patent  not  considered  at  the  trial. 

11  Off.  Gaz.  112. 
BuERK  V.  Valentine.     Watchman's  time-detector.     Original 

inventor.     Want  of  novelty.     Infringement,  combination. 

9  Blatch.  479;  5  Fisher,  366;  2  Off.  Gaz.  295. 

Bull  v.  Pratt.  Comb-machine.  Invalid  patent,  sold  by 
fraud.     1  Conn.  342. 

Bullock  Printing  Press  Co.  v.  Jones.  Printing-machines. 
Original  inventor.  Prior  knowledge.  Infringement,  com- 
bination.    13  Off.  Gaz.  124. 

BuRDELL  V.  Denig.  Sewing-machines.  Assignment.  Con- 
tract. Accord  and  satisfaction.  Nominal  damages.  2 
Fisher,  588. 

Burdell  v.  Denig.  Sewing-machines.  New  trial.  Measure 
of  damages.  Interpretation  of  papers  as  to  their  making  a 
contract  or  not.     2  Otto,  716. 

Burden  v.  Corning.  Horse-shoes.  Uncertainty  in  specifica- 
tion. State  of  art.  Construction  of  patents.  Equivalent 
defined.  Word  "  combination."  Omissions.  Disclaimer, 
Delay.     Notice  of  defense.     2  Fisher,  477. 

Burdett  v.  Estey.  Reed  organs.  Disclaimers,  unreasonable 
delay.    Want  of  novelty.     15  Off.  Gaz.  877. 

Burleigh  Rock  Drill  Co.  v.  Lobdell.  Rock  drill.  Pre- 
liminary injunction,  no  prior  decisions,  infringement  must 
be  clear.     1  Holmes,  450;  7  Off.  Gaz.  836. 

Burns  v.  Barnes.  Furnace.  Note  for  assignment  of  patent. 
Fraud.     58  Indiana,  436. 

Burr  v.  Cowperthwait.  Hat-bodies.  Original  inventor. 
Want  of  novelty.  Particular  patent.  Utility.  Infringe- 
ment, process.     4  Blatch.  163. 

Burr  v.  Duryee.  Hat-bodies.  Assignment.  License, 
Patents  before  board  of  examiners  was  made.  Reissue  not 
for  same  invention.     Infringement.     2  Fisher,  275. 

Burr  v.  Duryee.  Hat-bodies.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion. What  patents  are  for.  Infringement,  combination. 
1  Wall.  531. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  21 

Burr  v.  Gregory.  Veneers.  Sale  of  patent-right.  No  juris- 
diction of  United  States  court  where  validity  of  patent  is 
not  involved.     2  Paine,  426. 

BuRRALL  V.  Jewett.  Thresliing-machine.  Sale  of  patented 
machine.  Fraud.  Jurisdiction  of  State  courts  in  patent 
suits.     2  Paige  (N.Y.),  134. 

BuRRAi-L  V.  lluMSEY.  Corn-sheller.  Patent  for  different  result 
must  show  process.     13  Off.  Gaz.  123. 

Burrows  v.  Lehigh  Zinc  Co.  Furnace.  Held  not  to  be  the 
inventor.     31  Leg.  Int.  332. 

Buss  V.  Putney.  Saw.  Sale  of  patented  machine  and  a  thing 
covered  by  another's  patent  is  license  to  use  the  thing.  38 
N.  H.  44. 

BussEY  V.  Hicks.  Reservoir.  Want  of  novelty.  Utility.  Con- 
struction of  patent.  Infringement,  combination.  9  Off. 
Gaz.  300. 

Bussey  v.  Hicks.  Reservoir.  Perpetual  injunction  issued.  9 
Off.  Gaz.  594. 

Bussey  v.  Wager.  Reservoir.  Want  of  novelty.  Utility. 
Construction  of  patent.  Infringement,  combination.  9  Off. 
Gaz.  300. 

Butch  v.  Boyer.  Steam-engine.  Promissory  note.  Want  of 
novelty.     8  Phila.  (Penn.)  57. 

Button  Hole  Machine  Co.  (See  Singer  Button  Hole 
Machine  Co.) 

BuTTRiCK  V.  Park.  Well-tubes.  Tort  for  deceit,  false  rep- 
resentations.    103  Mass.  501. 

Byam  v.  Bullard.  Matches.  Purchase  by  agent  of  patentee 
as  evidence  of  infringement.     1  Curtis,  100. 

Byam  v.  Eddy.  ^Matches.  Contempt.  Want  of  novelty.  In- 
fringement, combination,  colorable  alteration.  Bond.  2 
Blatch.  521 ;  24  Vt.  666. 

Byam  v.  Farr.  Matches.  Infringement,  known  equivalents. 
Disclaimer.     1  Curtis,  260. 

Byam  v.  Goodwin.     Matches.     (See  Ryan  t;.  Goodwin.) 


22  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


c. 

Cahart  v.  Austin.  Eeed  musical  instruments.  Reissue  not 
for  same  invention.  Original  inventor.  2  Cliff.  528;  2 
Fisher,  543. 

Cahill  v.  Beckford.  Leather  dressing.  Want  of  novelty, 
state  of  the  art,  new  process,  new  product.     1  Holmes,  48. 

Cahill  v.  Brown.  Leather  dressing.  Inventors  of  combina- 
tions, rights  of.  Rules  applicable  to  combinations.  Orig- 
inal inventor,  patent  presumptive  evidence.  Foreign 
patents.     Credibility  of  evidence.     15  Off.  Gaz.  697. 

Cahoon  v.  Ring.  Seed-planter.  Charge  to  jury.  Patent 
prima  facie  evidence  of  what.  Abandoned  experiments. 
Prior  knowledge.  Equivalents.  Infringement,  combina- 
tion. Test  of  similarity.  Trial  by  jury.  1  Cliff.  592;  1 
Fisher,  397. 

Calkins  v.  Bertrand.  Cultivators.  Original  inventor.  Re- 
issue not  for  same  invention.  Certainty  in  claims  of  patents. 
Infringement.     6  Bissell,  494;  9  Off.  Gaz.  795. 

Cammeyer  u.  Newton.  Adjustable  still-water  dam.  Infringe- 
ment, combination,  by  officer  of  United  States.  12  Blatch. 
122;  5  Off.  Gaz.  753. 

Cammeyer  v.  Newton.  Adjustable  still-water  dam.  Assign- 
ments before  issue.  Original  inventor.  Want  of  novelty. 
Particular  patent.  Utility.  Infringement,  combination, 
by  United  States  officer.  Above  affirmed.  4  Otto,  225; 
11  Off.  Gaz.  287. 

Campbell  v.  Barclay.  Tool  to  make  metallic  seams.  Rule 
of  damages,  price  he  has  sold  machine  no  criterion, 
profits,  advantage.     5  Bissell,  179. 

Cansler  v.  Eaton.  Smut-machine.  Assignment,  no  fraud 
2  Jones  Eq.  (N.  C.)  499. 

Car  Spring  Co.      (See  National  Car  Spring  Co.) 

Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fabric  Co.  Vulcanized  India 
rubber.  Right  of  assignee  of  executor  to  reissue.  Con- 
struction of  statute.     1  Holmes,  45. 


LIST   OP    CASES.  23 

Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fabric  Co.  Vulcanized  india- 
rubber.  Granting  of  reissues.  Title  of  complainant. 
Original  inventor.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement.  As- 
signees of  executors.  Practice,  interlocutory  decree. 
Profits.  Damages.  3  Cliff.  35G;  5  Fisher,  90;  1  Off.  Gaz. 
91. 

Carleton  v.  Atwood.  Abandonment.  Five  years  lying  dor- 
mant.    2  A.  L.  T.  (U.  S.)  R.  129. 

Carlton  v.  Bokee.  Lamps.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention. 
Want  of  novelty.     Infringement.     6  Fisher,  40. 

Carlton  v.  Bokee.  Lamps.  Construction  of  claims.  State 
of  art.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Infringement, 
combination.  Above  affirmed.  17  Wall.  463;  2  Off.  Gaz. 
520. 

Carr  v.  Rice.  Bran-duster.  Charge  to  jury.  Patents  and 
patentees.  Validity.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement, 
combination.     1  Fisher,  198. 

Carr  v.  Rice.  Bran-duster.  Action  at  law.  New  trial.  In- 
fringement.    4  Blatch.  200;  1  Fisher,  325. 

Carstaedt  v.  United  States  Corset  Co.  Take-up  mechan- 
ism for  looms.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  combina- 
tion.    13  Blatch.  119;  9  Off.  Gaz.  151. 

Carstaedt  v.  United  States  Corset  Co.  Take-up  mechan- 
ism for  looms.  Contempt.  Violation  of  injunction,  sub- 
stitution of  equivalent.     13  Blatch.  371;  10  Off.  Gaz.  3. 

Carter  v.  Baker.  Gang-plows.  Charge  to  jury.  Patent, 
prima  facie  evidence  of  original  inventor.  Infringement, 
■well-known  equivalents.  Damages.  1  Sawyer,  512;  4 
Fisher,  404. 

Carter  v.  Messinger.  Extension-tables.  Reissue  not  for 
same  invention.  Want  of  novelty.  Patentability.  In- 
fringement.    11  Blatch.  34. 

Cartridge  Co.     (See  Union  Metallic  Cartridge  Co.) 

Carver  v.  Braintree  Manufacturing  Co.  Cotton-gin. 
Uncertainty  in  specification.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion. Questions  for  jury.  Construction  of  statute.  New 
trial.  Courts  don't  supply  deficiencies  in  legislation.  2 
Story,  432;  2  Robb,  141. 


:^^. 


24  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

Carver  v.  Hyde.  Cotton-gin.  Purpose  not  patentable.  In- 
fringement.    16  Peters,  513. 

Case  v.  Brown.  Seed-planter.  Charge  to  jury.  Want  of 
novelty.  Original  inventor.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion.    Infringement.     1  Bissell,  382;  2  Fisher,  268. 

Case  v.  Brown.  Seed-planter.  Exceptions  to  ruling,  on  par- 
ticular patent.     Above  affirmed.     2  Wall.  320. 

Case  v.  Morey.  "Power."  Money  paid  under  contract. 
Value  of  patents.     1  N.  H.  317. 

Case  v.  Redfield.  Water-wheel.  Assignments  recorded. 
Extensions  not  carried  by  assignments.  Pleading,  multi- 
fariousness.    4  McLean,  526;  2  Robb,  741. 

Cawood  Patent  (Illinois  Railroad  v.  Turrill,  &c.  Five 
Cases.)  Anvil.  State  of* art.  Want  of  novelty.  Foreign 
patents.  Infringement,  profits.  4  Otto,  695;  12  Off.  Gaz. 
709. 

Celluloid  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Goodyear  Dental  Vul- 
canite Co.  Artificial  gums,  &c.  General  law  of  right  to 
sell.  Decision  of  points  not  in  issue.  Jurisdiction.  13 
Blatch.  375;  10  Off.  Gaz.  41. 

Chabot  v.  American  Button  Hole  and  Overseaming  Co. 
Sewing-machine.  Rule  of  law,  employe  making  experi- 
ments.    6  Fisher,  71. 

Chaffee  v.  Boston  Belting  Co.  India-rubber.  Trespass  on 
the  case  for  infringement.  Bill  of  exceptions  is  part  of  the 
record.  Assignments.  Machine  sold  passes  out  of  the 
monopoly.  Continue  to  use.  Court  below  reversed.  22 
Howard,  217. 

Chaffee  v.  Hayward.  India-rubber.  Motion  to  dismiss. 
Error  in  citation.  Construction  of  act  of  1789.  District 
where  defendant  lives  in  civil  suits.     20  Howard,  208. 

Chambers  v.  Smith.  Brick-machine.  Suits  by  licensee  in  his 
own  name.  Notice  of  license,  purchaser's  risk.  5  Fisher, 
12. 

Chase  v.  Sabin.  Buckles.  Want  of  novelty  of  particular 
patent.     1  Holmes,  395;  6  Off.  Gaz.  728. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  25 

Chase  v.  Walker.  Wire  grating.  Effect  of  assignment  on 
extension.     3  Fisher,  120. 

Chase  v.  Wesson.  Ilalter-rings.  Preliminary  injunction, 
long  enjoyment  of  rigiit,  plain  infringement.  1  Holmes, 
274;  6  Fisher,  517;  4  Off.  Gaz.  476. 

Chemical  Works.     (See  Rumford  Chemical  Works.) 

Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad  v.  Turrill.  (See  Cawood 
Patent.) 

Chicago,  Burlington,  and  Quincy  Railroad  v.  Turrill. 
(See  Cawood  Patent.) 

Chicago  Fruit  House  Co.  v.  Buscii.  Fruit-houses.  Reissue 
not  for  same  invention.  Infringement,  combination.  2 
Bissell,  472;  4  Fisher,  395. 

Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railroad  v.  Sayles.  Car- 
brakes.  Infringement.  Particular  patent.  Construction  of 
patents.     Gradual  growth.    7  Otto,  554;  15  Off.  Gaz.  213. 

Child  (Mini's  Assignee)  v.  Adams.  Lampblack.  Alien,  false 
oath.  Reissue.  Construction  of  the  patent.  3  AVall.  Jr. 
20;  1  Fisher,  189. 

Child  v.  Boston  and  Fairhaven  Iron  Works.  Printing- 
press.  Original  inventor.  Prior  use.  Want  of  novelty. 
Patentability.    1  Holmes,  303 ;  6  Fisher,  606 ;  5  Off.  Gaz.  61. 

Chipman  v.  Wentworth.  Carpet  lining.  Preliminary  in- 
junctions, doubt  of  validity  of  jtatent,  state  of  the  art. 
Patents  for  improvements.  1  Holmes,  96;  5  Fisher,  302; 
2  Off.  Gaz.  58. 

City  of  Elizabeth  v.  Pavement  Co.  Wooden  pavement. 
Foreign  patent  or  publications,  time  of.  Public  use. 
Abandonment.  Profits  by  means  of  improvements.  7 
Otto,  126. 

City  of  New  York  v.  Ransom.  Fire-engine.  Instruction 
of  the  court.     Profits  and  damages.     23  How.  487. 

Clan  Ranald  v.  Wyckoff.  Suit  by  receiver  for  assignment 
of  patent.     Jurisdiction.     41  N.  Y.  Supr.  527. 

Clark  v.  Bousfield.  Printing-bed.  ]\lachine  to  print  de- 
signs is  not  a  "  desigrn."     10  Wall.  133. 


26  PATENT     CASE    INDEX. 

Clark  v.  Church.     (See  Fisk  kt  al.  v.  Church.) 

Clakk  v.  Kennedy  Manufacturing  Co.  Bolts.  Construc- 
tion of  patents.  State  of  the  art.  Reissue  not  for  same 
invention.  Infringement,  process.  14  Blatch.  79 ;  11  Off. 
Gaz.  67. 

Clark  v.  Scott.  Hand-mirror.  Construction  of  patents. 
State  of  the  art.  Abandonment.  Original  inventor,  too 
general  statement  in  answer.  9  Blatch.  301 ;  5  Fisher,  245; 
2  Off.  Gaz.  4. 

Clark  v.  Smith.  Purifying  middlings.  Note  for  reassign- 
ment of  half-interest  in  patent.  Failure  of  consideration. 
21  Minn.  539. 

Clark  Patent  Steam  and  Fire  Regulator  Co.  v.  Cope- 
land.  Steam-engines.  Charge  to  jury.  Want  of  novelty, 
patent  prima  facie  evidence,  inventive  skill.  Infringe- 
ment.    2  Fisher,  221. 

Cleveland  v.  Towle.  Suspenders.  Two  years'  prior  use 
by  others  than  patentee.  Infringement,  use  of  invention 
as  element  of  combination.     3  Fisher,  525. 

Clothes  Wringer  Co.     (See  Eureka  Co.) 

Clough  v.  Gilbert  and  Barker  Manufacturing  Co.  Gas- 
burners.     Infringement,  equivalents.     15  Off.  Gaz.  1009. 

Clough  v.  Patrick.  Mowing-machine.  Note,  void  patent  no 
consideration.     37  Vt.  421. 

Clum  v.  Brewer.  Electric  telegraph.  Preliminary  injunctions. 
Prior  decisions.  Sale  of  invention  before  patent  issues,  effect 
on  extension.     Assignment  to  defendant.     2  Curtis,  506. 

Cochrane  v.  Deener.  Manufacture  of  iiour.  Jurisdiction  of 
Supreme  Court  of  District  of  Columbia.  Want  of  novelty. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  4  Otto,  780 ;  11  Off.  Gaz.  687. 

Coffin  v.  Ogden.  Locks.  Construction  of  patents.  Want  of 
novelty.     Infringement.     7  Blatch.  61 ;  3  Fisher,  640. 

Coffin  v.  Ogden.  Locks.  Want  of  novelty.  Burden  of 
proof.     Above  affirmed.     18  AA^all.  120;  5  Off.  Gaz.  270. 

CoHNw.  National  Rubber  Co.  Shoes.  Licensees  violating  their 
contract  are  to  be  treated  as  infringers.     15  Off.  Gaz.  829. 


LIST    OF     CASES.  27 

CoHN  V.  United  States  Corset  Co.  Corsets.  Printed  pub- 
lications. Prior  knowledge.  Amount  of  proof.  12  Blatch. 
225;  6  Off.  Gaz.  259. 

CoHX  V.  United  States  Corset  Co.  Corsets.  Printed  pub- 
lications.    Above  affirmed.     3  Otto,  366;  11  Off.  Gaz.  457. 

Cole  v.  Kennedy.  Fluting-machine.  Decree.  Patent  de- 
clared valid.     9  Off.  Gaz.  1110. 

Colgate  v.  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.  Submarine 
cable.  Interpretation  of  the  patent.  Want  of  novelty. 
Prior  use.     Abandonment.     11  Off.  Gaz.  913. 

Collar  Co.     (See  Union  Paper  Collar  Co.) 

CoLLENDER  V.  Bailey.  Billiard  cushions.  Infringement.  Con- 
struction of  patent.     13  Off.  Gaz.  277. 

CoLLENDER  r.  Came.  Billiard  cushions.  What  patents  are  for. 
Fatent prima  facie  evidence  of  original  inventor.  Defenses  in 
answer  must  be  proved.     Infringement.     10  Off.  Gaz.  467. 

CoLLENDER  V.  Griffeth.  Billiard  cusliions.  Admissibility 
of  evidence.     11  Blatch.  212;  3  Off.  Gaz.  689. 

Collins  v.  Peebles.  Furnaces.  Limitations  in  patent  suits, 
State  statutes.     2  Fisher,  541. 

Colt  v.  Massachusetts  Arms  Co.  Fire-arms.  Charge  to 
jury.  Senior  and  junior  patents.  Patentees  of  improve- 
ments. Prior  invention  is  not  prior  use.  Date  of  inven- 
tions.    1  Fisher,  108. 

Colt  v.  Young.     Fire-arms.     Validity  of  extensions.     Juris- 
diction of  Commissioner.     2  Blatch.  471. 
Comb  Co.     (See  India-rubber  Comb  Co.) 

Commissioner  of  Patents  v.  Whitely.  Mowing-machine. 
Application  for  reissue  by  sectional  assignee.  When  man- 
damus will  lie.     4  Wall.  522. 

CoMSTOCK  V.  Sandusky  Seat  Co.  Carriage  bodies.  Want  of 
novelty.  Public  use.  Infriiigement.  Defense  in  answer. 
13  Off.  Gaz.  230. 

CoNKLiN  V.  Stafford.  Cultivators.  Appeal  from  Commis- 
sioner's decision.  Right  to  a  reissue.  Abandonment. 
Province  of  Commissioner.     Appeals.     5  Off.  Gaz.  235. 


28  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

CoNOVER  V.  DoHRMAN.  Wood-spUtting  machine.  Infringe- 
ment. Comparison  of  tlie  machines.  6  Blatch.  60;  3 
Fisher,  382. 

CoNOVER  t;.  Mers.  Wood-splitting  machine.  Preliminary 
injunctions,    prior   decisions,   responsibility  of   defendant. 

3  Fisher,  386. 

Conover  v.  Mers.  Wood- splitting  machine.  Master's  report. 
Saving  by  use.     Profits.     11  Blatch.  197;  6  Fisher,  506. 

Conover  v.  Rapp.  Wood-splitting  machine.  Charge  to  jury. 
Patent  prima  facie  evidence  of  novelty.  Infringement, 
equivalents.  Experts  as  witnesses.  Patentees  of  improve- 
ments.    Damages.     4  Fisher,  57. 

Conover  w.  Roach.  Wood-splitting  machine.  Charge  to 
jury.  What  constitutes  invention.  Patentability.  In- 
fringement, combination,  change  of  form  of  parts.  Equiv- 
alents.    4  Fisher,  12. 

Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  AVhitney.  Fruit-jars. 
Modifying  injunctions.  Subdividing  patents  not  allowed. 
Notice  of  suit  for  fraud.  Right  to  injunction.  Protection 
for  defendants.     31  Leg.  Int.  229. 

Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  Wright.  Fruit-jars.  Origi- 
nal inventor.  Public  use.  Abandonment.  12  Blatch.  149 ; 
6  Off.  Gaz.  327. 

Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  Wright.  Fruit-jars.  Prior 
use.     Abandonment.     Above  affirmed.     4  Otto,  92. 

Continental  Windmill  Co.  r.  Empire  Windmill  Co. 
Wind-wheels.  Contract.  Invention  by  employe.  Equity 
jurisdiction.     Legal   and  equitable   titles.     8  Blatch.  295; 

4  Fisher,  428. 

Converse  v.  Cannon.  Steamboat  staging.  Infringement, 
same  principle.     2  Woods,  7;  9  Off.  Gaz.  105. 

Cook  v.  Ernest.  Metallic  bale  ties.  Right  to  sue  on  separate 
claims.  Utility.  Want  of  novelty.  Patent  prima  facie 
evidence.     Infringement.     5  Fisher,  396;  2  Off.  Gaz.  89. 

Cook  v.  Howard.  Dust  deflector.  Defenses  set  up  in  answer 
must  be  proved.  Patentees  of  improvements.  Infringe- 
ment, formal  differences.     4  Fisher,  269. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  29 

CooLiDGE  V.  McCoNE.  Amalgamating  pans.  Charge  to  jury. 
Infringement,  combination  of  three  not  infringed  by  two. 

2  Sawyer,  571 ;  5  Off.  Gaz.  458. 

Cooper  v.  Mattheys.  Raih-oad  carriages.  Injunction  not 
granted  where  long  adverse  possession  by  defendant.  Not 
granted  where  facts  or  credibility  of  witnesses  have  to  be 
decided.  Unreasonable  delay  in  bringing  suit.  5  Penn. 
L.  J.  38;  8  Law  Rep.  413. 

Corliss  v.  Wheeler  and  Wilson  Manufacturing  Co. 
Steam-engines.  Interpretation  of  the  particular  patent.  2 
Fisher,  199. 

Cornell  v.  American  Bush  Co.  Bushes  and  wrenches.  Con- 
struction of  patents.  Patentability.  7  Bissell,  346;  11 
0£E.  Gaz.  331. 

Cornell  v.  Downer  and  Bemis  Brewing  Co.  Bushes  and 
wrenches.  Construction  of  patents.  Patentability.  7 
Bissell,  346;  11  Off.  Gaz.  331. 

Cornell  v.  Littlejohn.  Bushes  and  wrenches.  Interpreta- 
tion of  the  patent.  Preliminary  injunction.  9  Off.  Gaz. 
837;  s.  c.  932. 

CoRNELY  V.  Henderickx.  Sewing-machine.  Merely  an  order 
of  court.     12  Off.  Gaz.  431. 

Corning  v.  Burden.  Nail-machine.  Exceptions.  Admissi- 
bility of  evidence.     Want  of  novelty.     15  How.  252. 

Cotton  Tie  Co.     (See  American  Cotton  Tie  Co.) 

Cowan  v.  Dodd.  Horse-collar  machine.  False  representations 
on  sale  of  patented  machine.     Note,  lack  of  consideration. 

3  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  278. 

Cowan  v.  Mitchell.  Horse-collar  machine.  Note,  worthless 
invention.  Action  of  Patent  Office  on  patent  is  conclusive. 
11  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  87. 

Cowing  v.  Rumsey.  Cylinder  polisher.  New  trial.  Wrong 
rule  of  damages.     8  Blatch.  36;  4  Fisher,  275. 

Cox  V.  Griggs.  Drain-plows.  Charge  to  jury.  Patent  prima 
facie  evidence  of  original  inventor.  Utility.  Infringement. 
Rule  of  damages.     1  Bissell,  362;  2  Fisher,  174. 


30  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Crag IX  v.  Fowler.  Seed-sower.  Note,  worthless  patent,  no 
consideration.     34  Vt.  326. 

Craig  ?•.  Fisher.  Attachment  and  fine  for  contempt.  5  Pac. 
L.  R.  5J. 

Craig  v.  Smith.  Drive-well.  Original  inventor.  Construction 
of  the  patent.     2  Dillon,  375. 

Craig  v.  Smith.  Drive-well.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringe- 
ment, combination.     4  Dillon,  349.    2  Cent.  L.  J.  2.56. 

Cranson  v.  Smith.  Notes  given  for  patent  under  Michigan 
law.     37  Mich.  309. 

Crittexden  v.  White.  Illegality  of  State  legislation  on  sale 
of  patent-rights.     23  Minn.  24. 

Crocker's  Case.  Two  patents  for  same  invention,  one  joint 
and  one  sole.     2  A.  L.  T.  (U.  S.)  R.  129. 

Crompton  v.  Belkxap  Mills.  Looms.  Patent  prima  facie 
evidence.  Want  of  novelty.  Utility.  Patentability.  Re- 
issue not  for  same  invention.  Illegality  of  extension.  In- 
fringement, combination.     3  Fisher,  536. 

Crosby  v.  Lapouraille.  Saw-mill.  Patentability,  new  com- 
bination of  old  elements.  Infringement,  combination. 
Taney,  Dec.  374. 

Cross  v.  Huntly.  Washing-machine.  Want  of  novelty. 
Void  patent,  too  large  a  claim.     13  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  385. 

Crouch  v.  Roemer.  Shawl  strap.  Patent  prima  facie  evi- 
dence.    Want  of  novelty.     Public  use.    11  Off.  Gaz.  1112. 

Crouch  y.  Speer.  Shawl-strap.  Patent  pn'ma /ac/e  evidence. 
Want  of  novelty.  Patentability.  Utility.  6  Off.  Gaz. 
187. 

Curtis  v.  Branch.  Circular  saws.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention, too  large  claims  in  reissue.     15  Off.  Gaz.  919. 

Cutter  Co.     (See  Steam  Cutter  Co.) 

Cutting  v.  Myers.  Steamboats.  What  the  declaration  in  a 
patent  suit  must  contain.     4  Wash.  220;  1  Robb,  159. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  31 


D. 

Dalton  r.  Jennings.    Ladies'  hair-nets.    Interpretation  of  the 

particular  patent.     12  Blatch.  96;  5  Off.  Gaz.  615. 
Dalton  v.  Jennings.     Ladies'  hair-nets.     Want  of  novelty. 

Public  use.     Above  affirmed.     3  Otto,  271;    11  Off.  Gaz. 

111. 
Dalton  v.  Nelson.     Steam-gauge  cock.    Patentability,  change 

of  material.     13  Blatch.  357;  9  Off.  Gaz.  1112. 

Dane  v.  Chicago  Manufacturing  Co.  Lanterns.  Date  of 
inventions.  Want  of  novelty.  3  Bissell,  380;  6  Fisher, 
130;  2  Off.  Gaz.  677. 

Dane  v.  Chicago  Manufacturing  Co.  Lanterns.  Infringe- 
ment, combination.  Want  of  novelty.  Above  affirmed. 
7  Off.  Gaz.  92L 

Dane  v.  Illinois  Manufacturing  Co.  Lanterns.  Infringe- 
ment, combination.  Want  of  novelty.  3  Bissell,  374;  6 
Fisher,  124;  2  Off.  Gaz.  6S0.i 

Darst  v.  Brockway.  Cement.  Law  of  patents.  Want  of 
novelty.     Failure  of  consideration  of  note.     11  Ohio,  462. 

David  v.  Park.  Well-tubes.  Tort  for  deceit.  False  repre- 
sentations.    103  Mass.  501. 

Davis  v.  Bell.'  Tanning  hides.  Void  patent.  Too  broad 
claims.     Contract.     8  X.  H.  500. 

Davis  v.  Gray.  Reaper.  Pleading.  Note  for  patent.  Ex- 
clusion of  evidence.     17  Ohio  St.  330. 

Davis  v.  McCormick.  Plow.  Uncertainty  in  specification. 
Construction  of  patent.     2  Brock.  208;  1  Robb,  518. 

Davis  ».  Palmer.  Plow.  Uncertainty  in  specification. 
Construction  of  patent.     2  Brock.  298  ;  1  Robb,  518. 

Davoll  v.  Brown.  Cotton-speeder.  Construction  for  the 
court.  Patents,  how  construed.  1  W.  &  M.  53;  2  Robb. 
303. 

1  Misnamed  in  the  Official  Gazette,  Dane  t".  Chicago  Manufacturing  Co. 


32  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Davy  v.  Morgan.  Sleigh  shafts.  Note.  Consideration.  Con- 
struction of  revenue  acts.  Parol  agreement  for  patent.  56 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  218. 

Dawson  v.  Follen.  Suspenders.  Original  inventor  for  whole 
world.     2  Wash.  311;  1  Robb,  9. 

Day  v.  Bankers  and  Brokers'  Telegraph  Co.  Telegraph. 
Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  combination.  9  Blatch. 
345;  5  Fisher,  268;  1  Off.  Gaz.  551. 

Day  v.  Boston  Belting  Co.  India-rubber.  What  preliminary 
injunctions  are  for,  in  statu  quo.  Practice  as  to  affidavits. 
16  Law  Rep.  329. 

Day  v.  Candee.  India-rubber.  Cannot  convey  extended  pat- 
ent before  extension.  Equitable  titles.  Powers  of  attor- 
ney. Mischief  by  injunction.  Licensees.  Contract.  3 
Fisher,  9. 

Day  v.  Caky.  India-rubber,  Construction  of  grants.  Ex- 
traneous facts.  "  Renewal  "  means  "  extension,"  not  "  re- 
issue."    1  Fisher,  424. 

Day  v.  Hartshorn.  India-rubber,  Preliminary  injunctions. 
Verdict  at  law.  Motion  for  new  trial  pending.  License. 
3  Fisher,  32. 

Day'  v.  Hayward.  India-rubber,  Motion  to  dismiss.  Error 
in  citation.  Construction  of  act  of  1789.  District  where 
defendant  lives  in  civil  suits.     20  Howard,  208. 

Day  v.  New  England  Car  Spring  Co.  India-rubber.  Pre- 
liminary injunctions.  Practice  of  courts.  License  as  a 
defence.     Rebutting  evidence,     3  Blatch.  154. 

Day  v.  New  England  Car  Spring  Co.  India-rubber.  Action 
at  law.  Special  plea  of  license,  not  attacking  validity  of 
the  patent.     3  Blatch,  179. 

Day  v.  Newark  iNDiA-RtmnER  Co.  India-rubber.  Jurisdiction 
over  foreign  corporation,  found  in  State.     1  Blatch.  628. 

Day  v.  Stellman.  India-rubber.  Expert  testimony.  Con- 
struction of  written  instruments.  Assignments.  1  Fisher, 
487. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  33 

Day  v.  Uxiox  India-rubbeu  Co.  India-rubber.  Licensee 
before  extension  uses  after.  Special  acts  to  extend.  Right 
to  use.     3  Blatch.  488. 

Day  v.  Union  India-rubber  Co.  India-rubber.  Right  to 
use  before  extension.     20  Howard,  216. 

Daytox  v.  Wright.  Wire  sieve.  Motion  to  dissolve  injunc- 
tion, privity  of  purchaser.     11  Off.  Gaz.  197. 

Dean  v.  Charlton.  Wooden  pavement.  Power  of  city  to 
make  tax-payers  pay  for  use  of  patented  pavement.  23 
Wise.  590. 

Dean  v.  Mason.  Planing-raachine.  Master's  report.  Profits 
and  damages.  Decree  pro  confesso.  Motion  to  file  an 
answer.  Discretion  of  the  Circuit  Court,  no  appeal  lies. 
Motion  to  dismiss  for  parting  with  interest.  20  Howard, 
198. 

Decker  v.  Griffeth.  Billiard  cushions.  Infringement,  par- 
ticular patent.     13  Blatch.  187 ;  8  Off.  Gaz.  944. 

Decker  v.  Grote.  Billiard  cushions.  Utility.  Want  of 
novelty.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  10  Blatch.  331 ; 
6  Fisher,  143;  3  Off.  Gaz.  65. 

Decker  v.  New  York  Belting  and  Packing  Co.  Billiard 
cushions.  Jurisdiction.  Waiver  by  corporation.  6  Fisher, 
374;  3  Off.  Gaz.  441. 

Decker  v.  Silverbrandt.  Billiard  cushions.  Infringement, 
particular  patent.     13  Blatch.  187;  8  Off.  Gaz.  944. 

De  Florez  v.  Raynolds.  Tin  preserve-cans.  Reissue  not  for 
same  invention.  Original  inventor,  patent  prima  facie 
evidence.     Infringement.     14  Blatch.  505. 

Delano  v.  Scott.  Iron  safes.  Repeal  of  patent,  scire  facias. 
Inventor.     False  suggestion.     1  Gilpin,  489;  1  Robb,  700. 

Dennis  v.  Cross,  Lantern.  Infringement,  uncertainty  in 
specification.     3  Bissell,  389;  6  Fisher,  138. 

Dennis  v.  Eddy.      Cultivators.      Reissues.      Construction  of 
patents.    Infringement,  cliange  of  form.    Form  may  be  the 
essence  of  invention.     4  Fisher,  423. 
3 


34  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Dennis  v.  Eddy.     Mould-board  for  plows.     Decree.     11  Off. 

Gaz.  833. 
Densmore    v.    Schofield.      Petroleum    car.      Infringement, 

combination,  omission  of  one  ingredient.     4  Fisher,  148. 

Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  (See  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcan- 
ite Co.) 

Detmold  v.  Reeves.  Economizing  fuel.  Patentability, 
practical  application  not  mere  idea.     1  Fisher,  127. 

Detroit  Stove  Works  v.  Michigan  Stove  Co.  Base-burning 
stove.  Original  inventor.  Construction  of  patent.  12  Off. 
Gaz.  189. 

De  Witt  v.  Elmira  Nobles  Manufacturing  Co.  Auger- 
machine.  Joint  owners  of  patents.  Jurisdiction.  5  Hun 
(N.  Y.),  301. 

De  Witt  v.  Elmira  Nobles  Manufacturing  Co.  Auger- 
machine.  Attempted  recovery  for  infringement  by  one 
half  owner  of  other  half.     Above  affirmed.     63  N.  Y.  459. 

Diamond  Rock  Borinq  Co.     (See  American  Diamond  Rock 

Boring  Co.) 
Dibble  v.  Augur.    Sewing-machine.     Assignment,  who  should 

sue.     Parties.     Infringement,  combination.    7  Blatch.  86. 

Dibble  v.  Sibley.  Sewing-machine.  Infringement,  combina- 
tion, particular  patent.     7  Blatch.  209. 

Dickinson  v.  Hall.  Flax-dressing.  Note,  void  patent, 
failure  of  consideration.     14  Pick.  (Mass.)  217. 

Dixon  v.  Moyer.  Saddle-making.  Plea  of  not  guilty,  what 
plaintiff  must  prove.  Experts  as  witnesses.  Original  in- 
ventor. Prior  use  here,  not  in  England.  Date  of  invention. 
Uncertainty  in  specification.     4  Wash.  68;  1  Robb,  324. 

Dobson  v.  Campbell.  Double  reflecting  baker.  Recording 
assignments,  omission  to  state  cured  by  verdict.  1  Sumner, 
319;  1  Robb,  681. 

Dodge  v.  Card.  Fireplaces.  Preliminary  injunction,  fair 
doubt  of  infringement.     1  Bond,  393;  2  Fisher,  116. 

Doherty  v.  Haynes.  Table  tray.  Patentability.  Original 
inventor.    Reissue  not  for  same  invention.    6  Off.  Gaz.  118. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  35 

Domestic  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Hatfield.  Sewing- 
machine.  Note  for  assignment.  Pleading.  Considera- 
tion.    Statute.     58  Ind.  187. 

DoRSEY  Revolving  Harvester  Rake  Co.  v.  Bradley  Manu- 
facturing Co.  Harvester.  Proper  parties.  Misjoinder. 
Territorial  assignments.  Right  to  use.  Licensee's  rights. 
Refusal  of  preliminary  injunctions.     12  Blatch.  202. 

DoRSEY  Revolving  Harvester  Rake  Co.  v.  Marsh.  Har- 
vester rakes.  Existence  of  corporation.  Plaintiff's  title. 
Extensions.  Want  of  novelty.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention. Uncertainty  in  specification.  Infringement.  6 
Fisher,  387. 

Doubleday  v.  Bracheo.  Bonnets,  &c.  Construction  of  par- 
ticular patent.     2  Fisher,  560. 

Doubleday  v.  Sherman.  Bonnets,  &c.  Defenses  in  answer. 
Infringement  of  particular  patent.     3  Fisher,  369. 

Doubleday  v.  Sherman.  Bonnets,  &c.  Construction  of  par- 
ticular patent.     3  Fisher,  371. 

Doubleday  v.  Sherman.  Bonnets,  &c.  Motion  to  dissolve 
injunction,  laches  and  acquiescence.     6  Blatch.  513. 

Doubleday  v.  Sherman.  Bonnets,  &c.  Contempt  for  vio- 
lating injunction,  amount  of  punishment,  poverty  of  de- 
fendant.    4  Fisher,  253. 

Doughty  r.  Day.  Skirt-hoops.  Construction  of  patents.  Want 
of  novelty.    Infringement.    9  Blatch.  262;  5  Fisher,  224. 

Doughty  v.  West.  Skeleton  skirts.  Original  inventor.  Un- 
intentional issue,  remedy.     6  Blatch.  429 ;  3  Fisher,  580. 

Doughty  v.  West.  Skeleton  skirts.  Special  notice  of  evi- 
dence in  equity,  waiver.  Actions  at  law  as  evidence. 
Jurisdiction.     Preliminary  injunctions.     2  Fisher,  553. 

Doughty  v.  West,  Bradley,  and  Cary  Manufacturing  Co. 
Skeleton  skirts.  Hearings  before  Master  on  reference. 
Taxation  of  costs,  docket  fees,  fees  of  Masters  and  Com- 
missioners.    4  Fisher,  318. 

Draper  v.  Hudson.  Type-blocks.  Infringement.  Want  of 
novelty.  Right  to  an  account.  1  Hohnes,  208;  6  Fisher, 
327;  3  Off.  Gaz.  354. 


36  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Draper  v.  Potomska  Mills.  Bobbins.  Date  of  invention. 
Original  inventor.  Patentability.  Reissue  not  for  same 
invention.     13  Off.  Gaz.  276. 

Dubois  v.  Philadelphia  and  Wilmington  Railroad  Co. 

Piers  for  bridges.       Estoppel,    former    suit  on   want   of 
novelty.     5  Fisher,  208. 

Dudley  v.  Mayhew.  Cooking-stoves.  No  jurisdiction  of 
patents  in  State  courts.  Patentee  no  rights  at  common  law. 
3N.Y.  9. 

Dunbar  v.  Harden.  Churning-machine.  Best  evidence, 
witness  of  a  note.  Want  of  novelty.  Utility.  13  N.  H. 
311. 

Dunbar  v.  Myers.  Sawing-machine.  Patentability.  Dis- 
claimers. Original  inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence. 
Right  to  obtain  patent.  What  is  invention?  State  of  art. 
Infringement,  combination.     4  Otto,  187;    11  Off.  Gaz.  35. 

Dunham  v.  Indiana  and  St.  Louis  Railroad.  Car-brake 
shoes.     Licensee  of  one  of  several  owners.     7  Bissell,  223. 

Dyer  v.  Rich.  Loom.  Promissory  note.  Want  of  novelty. 
Date  of  a  deed.  Validity  of  patent.  Oath.  1  Mete. 
(Mass.)  180. 

Dyson  v.  Danforth.  Carding-engine.  Worthless  patent. 
Failure  to  reissue.     4  Fisher,  133. 


E. 

Eames  v.  Cook.  Boot-trees.  Construction  of  particular  patent. 
Utility.     2  Fisher,  116. 

Eames  v.  Godfrey.  Boot-trees.  Infringement,  combination, 
omission  of  one  element.     1  Wall.  78. 

Earl  v.  Dexter.  Apparatus  for  oiling  wool.  Defense  in 
answer.  Admission  of  evidence.  Infringement.  1  Holmes, 
412;  6  Off.  Gaz.  729. 

Earl  v.  Page.  Shingle-machine.  Abandonment.  Note, 
failure  of  consideration.     6  N.  II.  477. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  37 

Earl  v.  Sawyer.  Shingle-machine.  Warit  of  novelty.  Pat- 
entability. Drawings  are  part  of  specification.  Rule  of 
damages.     4  Mason,  1;  1  Robb,  490. 

Earle  v.  Harlow.  Sheep  shearing.  Infringement,  substan- 
tially same  mode  of  operation.     9  Off.  Gaz.  1018. 

Earth  Closkt  Co.  v.  Fenner.  Water-closets.  Preliminary 
injunctions.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Reissues 
•without  oath.     5  Fisher,  15; 

Eastman  v.  Bodfish.  Clapboard-machine.  Time  stated  in 
declaration  is  binding  on  complainant  when  material.  1 
Story,  528;  2  Robb,  72. 

Eddy  v.  Dennis.  Cultivators.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion. Infringement,  combination,  particular  patent.  5 
Otto,  560. 

Edwards  v.  Richards.  Buckets.  Contract,  assignment  of 
patent,  parol  negotiations.     Wright  (Ohio),  596. 

Egbert  v.  Lippman.  Corset  steels.  Two  years'  public  use, 
consent  of  inventor.     14  Off.  Gaz.  822. 

Eickermeyer  Hat  Body  Machine  Co.  v.  Pearce.  Hat 
bodies.  Original  inventor.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion. Infringement.  10  Blatch.  403;  6  Fisher,  219;  3  Off. 
Gaz.  150. 

Elastic  Fabrics  Co.  v.  East  Hampton  Rubber  Thread 
Co.  Machine.  Caoutchouc.  Want  of  novelty,  particular 
patent.     1  Holmes,  372;  5  Off.  Gaz.  696. 

Elastic  Fabrics  Co.  v.  East  Hampton  Rubber  Thread 
Co.  Machine.  Caoutchouc.  Prior  knowledge,  degree  re- 
quired.    9  Off.  Gaz.  745. 

Elizabeth.     (See  City  of  Elizabeth.) 

Elkins  t>.  Kenyon.  Screw  fork,  hay  elevator.  Rescission  of 
contract.  Warranty.  Fraud.  Useless  article.  34  Wise. 
93. 

Ellithorp  u.  Robertson.  Sewing-machine.  Object  of  patent 
laws.  Prior  invention.  Patentability.  Abandoned  ex- 
periments. Race  of  diligence.  4  Blatch.  307;  2  Fisher, 
83. 


38  PATENT     CASE    INDEX. 

Elm  City  Co.  v.  Wooster.  Crimping-machines.  Original 
inventor.  Infringement.  Fraudulent  misrepresentations 
in  patent.  Corporation  is  in  jurisdiction  of  United  States 
courts.     6  Fisher,  452;  4  Oif.  Gaz.  S3. 

Elmer  v.  Fennel.  Sash  and  blind  machine.  Note  for  assign- 
ment of  patent-right,  want  of  consideration.  Jurisdiction 
of  patents.     40  Maine,  430. 

Ely  v.  McKay.  Sewing-machine.  Specific  performance  of 
agreement  to  convey.     12  Allen  (Mass.),  323. 

Ely  v.  Monson  and  Brimfield  Manufacturing  Co.  Cotton- 
gin.  Admissions.  Practice,  injunctions.  Trial  by  jury. 
Juries  in  equity.     Questions  'for  the  court.     4  Fisher,  64. 

Emerson  v.  Hogg.  Steam-engine.  Interpretation  of  patents 
is  for  court.  Several  inventions  in  one  patent.  Uncer- 
tainty in  specification.  Abandonment.  Damages.  2 
Blatch.  1. 

Emerson  v.  Simm.  Sawing-machine.  Master's  report,  dam- 
ages, profits.     6  Fisher,  281;  3  Off.  Gaz.  293. 

Emigh  y.  Chamberlain.  Car-brakes.  Assignment,  license 
to  company,  use  by  its  assignee.  1  Bissell,  367;  2  Fisher, 
192. 

Emigh  v.  Chicago,  Burlington,  and  Quincy  Railroad. 
Car-brakes.  Licenses  to  railroads.  Patentability,  combina- 
tion, old  elements  with  new  result.  1  Bissell,  400;  2 
Fisher,  387. 

Emmons  v.  Sladdin.  Healds.  Assignment  of  invention  before 
patent.     What  it  conveys.     9  Off.  Gaz.  352. 

Engine  Safety  Truck  Co.  (See  Locomotive  Engine 
Safety  Truck  Co.) 

England  v.  Thompson.  Tanning-machine.  Licensee  used 
another  tannery  when  only  allowed  one.     3  Cliff.  271. 

Eppinger  V.  Richey.  Tobacco.  Want  of  novelty.  Particular 
patent.     14  Blatch.  307;  12  Off.  Gaz.  714. 

Estabrook  v.  Dunbar.  Screw  peg.  Construction  of  patents, 
technical  terms,  state  of  the  art.     10  Off.  Gaz.  909. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  39 

EuNSON  V.  Dodge.  Sawing-machine.  Assignee's  right  after 
extension.  Purchase  of  infringer.  18  Wall.  414;  5  Off. 
Gaz.  95. 

EuNSON  V.  Peddie.  Sawing-machine.  Disclaimers.  When 
costs  are  not  allowed.  Original  inventor.  Infringement, 
mechanical  change.     8  Blatch.  440;  4  Fisher,  493. 

Eureka  Co.  v.  Bailey  Washing  Machine  Co.  Washing- 
machine.  Contract,  estoppel.  Fraud  of  government  not 
open  in  collateral  proceeding.  Notice  of  defense  in  answer. 
11  Wall.  488. 

Evans  v.  Chambers.  Flour-machine.  Nonsuit.  Allegations 
of  petition  for  patent  not  recited.    2  Wash.  125;  1  Robb,  7. 

Evans  v.  Eaton.  Fiour-machiue.  Private  act.  Analysis  of 
patent  law.  Patentability.  Gist  of  the  action.  Original 
inventor.     General  issue.     Peters  C.  C.  322;  1  Robb,  68. 

Evans  v.  Eaton.  Flour-machine.  Retrial  on  mandate,  ob- 
jection that  judgment  was  still  unreversed.  Construction 
of  the  patent.  Original  inventor.  Bad  patent.  3  Wash. 
443;  1  Robb,  193. 

Evans  v.  Eaton.  Flour-machine.  Evidence.  Prior  use.  In- 
terpretation of  patent.  Original  inventor.  Intention  of 
act  of  Congress.     3  Wheat.  454;  1  Robb,  243. 

Evans  v.  Eaton.  Flour-machine.  Original  inventor.  Prior 
use.  Private  act.  Interested  witnesses.  7  Wheat.  356; 
1  Robb,  336. 

Evans  v.  Hettick.  Flour-machine.  Evidence  of  declarations 
by  patentee.  Taking  depositions.  Rebutting  evidence. 
Interested  witnesses.  Original  inventor.  Prior  use.  3 
Wash.  408;  1  Robb,  166;  s.  c.  7  ^^Tieat.  453;  1  Robb,  417. 

Evans  v.  Jordan  and  Moreiiead.  Flour-machine.  Interpre- 
tation of  special  act.     1  Brock.  248;  1  Robb,  20. 

Evans  v.  Jordan  and  Morehead.    Flour-machine.    Effect  of 

Evans's  special  act  on  builders  and  users  before  its  passage. 

9  Cranch,  199;  1  Robb,  57. 
Evans  v.  Kremer.     Flour-machine.     Original  inventor.     Plea 

in  bar  by  special  notice  under  general  issue.     Peters  C  C. 

215;  1  Robb,  66. 


40  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Evans  v.  Robinson.     Flour-machine.     Congress  has  exclusive 

power  to  limit  duration  of  patents.     1  Car.  L.  R.  (N.  C.) 

209. 
Evans  v.  Weiss.      Flour-machine.      Construction  of  Evans's 

special  act.      Rights  of  first  inventor.     2  Wash.   342;    1 

Robb,  10. 
EvARTS  V.  Ford.     Shingle-machine.     Construction  of  patent. 

Infringement,  mode  of  operation.     6  Fisher,  587;  5  Off. 

Gaz.  58. 
Extinguisher  Co.      (See  Northwest  Fire  Extinguisher 

Co.) 

F. 

Fairhaven  Iron  Works.     (See  Boston  and   Fairhaven 

Iron  Works.) 
Fales  v.  Wentworth.     Carpet  lining.     Preliminary  injunc- 
tions, doubt  of  validity  of  patent,  state  of  the  art.     Patents 

for  improvements.     1  Holmes,  96;  5  Fisher,  302;  2  Off. 

Gaz.  58. 
Falls  Co.     (See  Miller's  Falls  Co.) 
Farrington    v.     Gregory.      Boring-machine.      Assignment 

distinguished  from  license.     What  sale  of  machine  carries. 

4  Fisher,  221. 
Farrington    v.  Water    Commissioners.      Boring-machine. 

What  rights  sale  of  machine  carries.     Use  after  extension. 

4  Fisher,  216. 
Felting  Co.     (See  Asbestos  Felting  Co.  v.  United  States 

AND  Foreign  Salamander  Felting  Co.) 
Ferree   v.    Smith.      Rock-drill.      Contract,   exclusive   license 

excludes  patentee  or  grantor.     29  La.  Ann.  811. 
Filter  Oil  Co.     (See  National  Filter  Oil  Co.) 

Finch  v.  Rikeman.  Cars.  Power  to  compel  production  of 
books.  Discovery,  when  penalty  would  fall  on  defendant. 
2  Blatch.  301. 

Fire-arm  Manufacturing  Co.  (See  Boston  Fire-arm 
Manufacturing  Co.) 


LIST    OP    CASES.  41 

Fire  Extinguisher  Co.  (See  Northwest  Fire  Extin- 
guisher Co.) 

First  National  Bank  v.  Peck.  Gas  stove.  Note,  void 
patent,  is  no  consideration.     8  Kansas,  660. 

Fisher  v.  Craig.  Mining  apparatus.  Reissue  not  for  same 
invention.  Prior  knowledge.  Infringement,  combination, 
mechanical  substitute.     3  Sawyer,  69. 

Fisk  et  al.  v.  Church.  Suspender-ends.  Prior  knowledge  and 
original  inventor  are  questions  of  fact.  Burden  of  proof  on 
defendant.     5  Fisher,  540 ;  1  Off.  Gaz.  634. 

FiTZ  w.  Comey.  Looms.  Contract,  in tei-pretation.  118  Mass. 
100. 

Flagg  v.  Church.     (See  Fisk  et  al.  v.  Church.) 

Flood  v.  Hicks.  Wagon-reach.  Patentability.  Name  given 
to  structure  is  immaterial.     2  Bissell,  169;  4  Fisher,  156. 

Florence  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Boston  Diatite  Co. 
Hand-mirror.  Infringement,  combination,  particular  pat- 
ent.    1  Holmes,  415;  6  Off.  Gaz.  728. 

Florence  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Grover  and  Baker  Sew- 
ing Machine  Co.  Sewing-machine.  Removal  of  suits  to 
United  States  court.  Furtlier'  instructions  after  verdict. 
Joint  recovery.     License.     Other  licenses.     110  Mass.  70. 

Florence  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Singer  Sewing  Machine 
Co.  Sewing-machine.  Interpretation  of  agreement.  Legal 
rights  only.  Court  will  not  proceed  where  final  decree  can- 
not be  reached.     8  Blatch.  113;  4  Fisher,  329. 

Florence  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Singer  Sew'ing  Machine 
Co.  Sewing-machine.  Money  paid  into  court  and  claimed 
by  both  parties.     8  Blatch.  177;  4  Fisher,  348. 

Foote  v.  Frost.  Bag-ties.  Patent  Commissioner  not  disquali- 
fied from  taking  a  patent  after  office  expires.  Want  of 
novelty.     14  Off.  Gaz.  860. 

Foote  v.  Silsby.  Draft  of  stoves.  Allowance  of  writ  of  error 
in  chambers.     1  Blatch.  542. 


42  PATENT     CASE    INDEX. 

FooTE  V.  SiLSBY.  Regulating  draft  of  stoves.  Juryman  taken 
ill.  at  opening  of  case.  Disclaimer.  Admissibility  of  evi- 
dence. Power  to  order  nonsuit.  Want  of  novelty  by  special 
plea.  No  evidence  allowed  if  plea  is  stricken  out.  Patent- 
ability. Questions  left  to  jury.  Proper  instractions.  Mo- 
tion for  new  trial  for  surprise  and  new  evidence.  Liberal 
damages.     1  Blatch.  445. 

FooTE  II.  SiLSBY.  Draft  of  stoves.  Feigned  issue.  Newly 
discovered  evidence.     1  Blatch.  545. 

FooTE  V.  SiLSBY.  Draft  of  stoves.  Charge  to  jury.  Patent- 
ability. Want  of  novelty.  What  is  required  to  anticipate 
a  patent.     2  Blatch.  260. 

FooTE  V.  SiLSBY.  Draft  of  stoves.  Reference  to  Master. 
Parties  as  witnesses.     3  Blatch.  507. 

Forbes  v.  Barstow  Stove  Co.  Coffins.  Surrender  of  patent 
withdrawn.  Effect  of  reissues.  Original  inventor.  Patent 
prima  facie  evidence.  Infringement.  Reissue  not  for  same 
invention.     Nonjoinder  of  parties.     2  Cliff.  379. 

FoRBUSH  V.  Bradford.  Looms.  Preliminary  injunctions, 
discretion  of  court.     Account.     1  Fisher,  317. 

FoRBUSH  V.  Cook.  Power  looms.  Claims  for  combination. 
Charge  to  jury.  Want  of  novelty,  cheapness,  new  effect  as 
evidence  of  novelty.     2  Fisher,  668. 

Forsyth  v.  Clapp.  Wringer-roll.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention. Infringement,  combination,  different  function  of 
a  part.     1  Holmes,  278;  6  Fisher,  528;  4  Off.  Gaz.  527. 

Foss  V.  Herbert.  Planing-machine.  Charge  to  jury.  Claims 
for  whole  and  parts.  Theory  of  patentee  is  of  no  account. 
Drawing  is  part  of  specification.  Patents  for  improve- 
ment. Infringement,  same  purpose.  1  BisseU,  121;  2 
Fisher,  31. 

Foss  V.  Richardson.  Elastic  horseshoe.  Deed  of  patent- 
right.  Suit  to  recover  purchase-money.  15  Gray  (Mass.), 
303. 

Foster  v.  Lindsay.  Repeal  of  patent.  Power  of  court  to  can- 
cel patents.     3  Dillon,  126;  7  Off.  Gaz.  514. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  43 

Foster  r.  Lindsay.  Interfering  patents.  Power  of  court  in 
such  case  by  statute  to  examine  and  cancel.  8  Ofi.  Gaz. 
1032. 

Foster  v.  Moore.  Sole-cutter.  Eight  years  exclusive  use. 
Preliminary  injunctions.  Infringement,  well-known  sub- 
stitutes. How  combinations  are  infringed.  1  Curtis, 
279. 

Fountain  Pkx  Co.     (See  Morse  Fountain  Pen  Co.) 

FoY  V.  Hunter.  Corset  skirt-protector.  Defenses  waived. 
Decree.     Three  cases.     9  Off.  Gaz.  5i2. 

Francis  v.  Mellor.  Inking  rollers.  Patents  construed  liber- 
ally. Claims,  how  construed.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion. Infringement,  composition.  Burden  of  proof.  5 
Fisher,  153;  1  Off.  Gaz.  48. 

French  u.  Rogers.  Telegraph.  Patents  for  an  "art."  Du- 
plicate drawings.  Dating  of  yura^  Date  of  foreign  patents. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Weight  of  Commissioner's 
decision.  More  than  one  reissue.  Reissue  must  be  broader 
than  original.     1  Fisher,  133. 

Frink  v.  Petry.  Gas  reflector.  IMotion  to  dissolve  injunction. 
Want  of  novelty.     11  Blatch.  422;  5  Off.  Gaz.  201. 

FiiuiT  House  Co.     (See  Chicago  Fruit  House  Co.) 

Fruit  Jar  Co.     (See  Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.) 

Fry  v.  Quinlan.  Surrender  and  reissue  ends  a  suit.  13 
Blatch.  205. 

Fuller  v.  Goodrich.  Sewing-machine.  Interpretation  of 
particular  patent.  AVant  of  novelty.  Construction  of 
patent  law.     Mechanical  changes.     6  Bissell,  203. 

Fuller  v.  Goodrich.  Sewing-machine.  Infringement  of  com- 
binations. Results  not  patentable.  Want  of  novelty. 
Superseding  a  patent.  Above  affirmed.  4  Otto,  299;  11 
Off.  Gaz.  597. 

Fuller  v.  Yentzer.  Sewing-machine.  Interpretation  of  par- 
ticular patents.  Want  of  novelty.  Construction  of  patent 
law.     Mechanical  changes.     6  BisseU,  203. 


44  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Fuller  v.  Yentzer.  Sewing-machine.  Result  not  patent- 
able. Infringements  of  combinations,  mere  substitutes. 
Burden  of  proof.  Patent  prima  facie  evidence  of  original 
inventor.     Above  affirmed.     4  Otto,  288;  11  Off.  Gaz.  551. 

Fuller    v.    Yentzer.      Sewing-machine.      Infringements    of 

combinations.     Results  not  patentable.     Want  of  novelty. 

Superseding  a  patent.      Above  affirmed.     4  Otto,  299;  11 

Off.  Gaz.  597. 
FuzzARD    Wadding    Manufacturing    Co.    v.    Dickinson. 

Wadding.      Infringement,    combination,    equivalents.      6 

Blatch.  80;  3  Fisher,  289. 

G. 

Gale  v.  Nourse.  Straw-cutter.  Interpretation  of  agreement. 
15  Gray  (Mass.),  300. 

Gallahue  y.  Butterfield.  Pegging  shoes.  Reissue  not  for 
same  invention.  Want  of  novelty.  Abandoned  experi- 
ments. Infringement,  combination.  10  Blatch.  232;  6 
Fisher,  203;  2  Off.  Gaz.  645. 

Galpin  v.  Atwater.  Sewing-machine.  Warranty.  Written 
contracts,  parol  warranty.  Assignments  of  patents  must  be 
in  writing.     29  Conn.  93. 

Gardiner  v.  Howe.  Sails  of  vessels.  Infringement  by  Amer- 
ican boats  on  the  high  seas.     2  Cliff.  462. 

Gardner  v.  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  Artificial 
gums  and  palates.  Compromise.  Decree  of  affirmance 
vacated.  Appeal  dismissed.  Mandate  recalled.  6  Fisher, 
329 ;  3  Off.  Gaz.  295. 

Garratt  v.  Seibert.  Lubricators.  Patents  for  combinations. 
7  Pac.  L.  R.  116;  22  Pitts.  L.  J.  18. 

Garratt  v.  Seibert.  Lubricators.  Interfering  patent. 
Question  is  who  is  first  inventor.  Decree  affirmed.  8 
Otto,  75;  15  Off.  Gaz.  383. 

Garretson  v.  Clark.  Mop-head.  Master's  report,  profits, 
damages.     Value  of  improvements.     14  Off.  Gaz.  485. 

Gates  v.  Benson.    Abandonment.    3  A.  L.  T.  (U.  S.)  R.  113. 


LIST    OF     CASES.  45 

Gatling  v.  Newell.     Rescission  of  contracts.     English  pat- 
ents.    9  Ind.  572. 
Gauge  Co.     (See  United  States  Gauge  Co.) 

Gay  v.  Cornell.  Lead-pipe  machinery.  Assignments  after 
rejection  of  patent.     Recording.     1  Blatch.  .506. 

Gaylor  v.  Wilder.  Fireproof  safes.  Assignments  before 
issue.  Want  of  novelty.  Abandoned  experiments.  Orig- 
inal inventor.     Lost  arts.     10  How.  477. 

Gear  v.  Grosvenor.  Lathe,  irregular  forms.  Fraud  not  open 
in  collateral  proceedings.  Extension.  Patent  prima  facie 
evidence  that  preliminaries  were  done  legally.  Assignments 
before  issue  and  before  extension.  Want  of  novelty.  Con- 
struction of  assignments.  Jurisdiction  of  Commissioner. 
1  Holmes,  215;  6  Fisher,  314;  3  Off.  Gaz.  380. 

Gear  v.  Holmes.  Lathe,  irregular  forms.  Extension  of  pat- 
ents. Habendum  clause  of  assignment.  Preliminary  in- 
junctions, untested  patents.     6  Fisher,  595. 

Geier  v.  Goetinger.  Impervious  bungs.  Construction  of 
patent,  presumption  of  law,  prior  use,  state  of  the  art. 
Evidence  not  in  answer.  Printed  publications.  7  Off.  Gaz. 
563. 

Geiger  v.  Cook.  Forge-hammer.  Sealed  note.  Debt.  No 
consideration.    Want  of  novelty.     3  W.  &  S.  (Penn.)  266. 

Giant  Powder  Co.     (See  Atlantic  Giant  Powder  Co.) 

Gibson  v.  Barnard.  Woodworth's  planing-machine.  Con- 
tract partly  executed,  infringement  under  it.  1  Blatch. 
388. 

Gibson  v.  Betts.  Woodworth's  planing-machine.  Prelim- 
inary injunction,  won't  go  into  questions  of  originality  or 
validity  of  patent.     1  Blatch.  1G3. 

Gibson  v.  Cook.  Woodworth's  planing-machine.  Assign- 
ments before  extension.  Recording  assignments.  Bona 
Jide  purchasers.     2  Bhitch.  144. 

Gibson  v.  Gifford.  Woodworth's  planing-machine.  Special 
act,  assignees'  rights,  fraud  in  obtaining,  remedy.  1 
Blatch.  529. 


46  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

GiBsox  V.  Harris.  AVoodworth's  planing-machine.  Special 
act,  authority  of  commissioner.  Infringement,  combina- 
tion.    1  Blatch.  167. 

Gibson  v.  Van  Dresar.  Woodworth's  planing-machine.  In- 
fringement, combination,  "analogous  device,"  colorable 
imitation.     Preliminary  injunctions.     1  Blatch.  532. 

Gibson  v.  Woodworth.  "Woodworth's  planing-machine.  No 
jurisdiction  in  State  courts.     8  Paige  (N.  Y.),  132. 

Gilbert  and  Barker  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Bussing.  Car- 
buretting  air.  Suit  against  purchaser  after  preliminary 
injunction  against  maker.  Discussion  of  rights  of  parties. 
12  Blatch.  426 ;  8  Off.  Gaz.  U4. 

Gilbert  and  Barker  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Tirrell.  Car- 
buretting  air.  Patentability,  change  of  location.  Original 
inventor.     Infringement.     12  Blatch.  144;  8  Off.  Gaz.  2. 

Gilbert  and  Barker  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Walworth 
Manufacturing  Co.  Carburetting  air.  Want  of  novelty. 
Patentability,  change  of  location.  New  combination,  new 
result.     9  Off.  Gaz.  746. 

Gill  v.  Wells.  Hat-body  machine.  New  combinations  of 
old  elements.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  What  re- 
issues are  for,  and  what  they  must  contain.  Omission  of 
one  element  of  combination.  Equivalents.  Questions  of 
fact.  Policy  of  such  rules.  Wells  v.  Gill  reversed.  22 
Wall.  1;  6  Off.  Gaz.  881. 

Gillespie  v.  Cummings.  Brooms.  Pleading,  multifarious- 
ness.    3  Sawyer,  259. 

GiLMORE  V.  Aiken.  Dressing  millstones.  Assignment  amount- 
ing to  quitclaim.     118  Mass.  94. 

GiLMORE  y.  GoLAY.  Dressing  millstones.  Decree.  3  Fisher,  522. 

Glue  Co.     (See  Milligan  and  Higgins  Glue  Co.) 

Godfrey  v.  Eames.  Boot-trees.  Continuity  of  application, 
withdrawing  first  and  putting  in  another.     1  Wall.  317. 

Goff  v.  Stafford.  Arranging  tape.  Patent  suits  in  law 
and  equity.  Original  inventor.  Printed  publications. 
Foreign  patents.  Burden  of  proof  of  infringement.  Term 
of  patents.     14  Off.  Gaz.  748. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  47 

Gold  v.  Ives.  "Warming  houses.  New  trials.  Recoupment. 
Nominal  damages.     29  Conn.  119. 

Gold  and  Silvkr  Ore  Separatixg  Co.  v.  United  States 
Disintegrating  Co.  Stoves.  What  interference  is.  3 
FLsher,  489. 

Gong  Bell  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Clark.  Child's  toy. 
Want  of  novelty.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  In- 
fringement.    13  Off.  Gaz.  274. 

Goodyear  v.  Allyn.  India-rubber.  Patented  articles  not 
marked  "patented."  Misjoinder  of  plaintiffs.  6  Blatch. 
3;3;  .3  Fisher,  374. 

Goodyear  v.  Berry.  India-rubber.  Authority  of  prior  deci- 
sions. Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Liberal  construc- 
tion of  patents.  Denial  of  infringement  must  be  direct. 
2  Bond,  189;  3  Fisher,  439. 

Goodyear  v.  Beverly  Rubber  Co.      India-rubber.     Formal 

objections.     Infringement,  process.    Article  sold  passes  out 
of  monopoly  of  patent.     1  Cliff.  348. 

Goodyear  v.  Bishop,  India-rubber.  Suit  by  licensee  is  prop- 
erly brought  in  name  of  patentee,  and  will  not  be  discon- 
tinued because  he  releases  tlie  defendants.     2  Fisher,  96. 

Goodyear  v.  Bishop.  India-rubber.  Charge  to  jury.  To  get 
at  damages  the  jury  must  find  facts.  Damages,  license 
fee.     2  Fisher,  154. 

Goodyear  ik  Bourn.  India-rubber.  Dissolution  of  paiticular 
injunction.     3  Blatch.  266. 

Goodyear  v.  Cary.  India-rubber.  Interpretation  of  agree- 
ments. Admissions  of  parties.  "Renewed"  means  "ex- 
tended."    4  Blatch.  271. 

Goodyear  v.  Chaffee.  India-rubber.  Irregularity  of  service 
is  waived  by  appearance.  Out  of  jurisdiction.  3  Blatch. 
268. 

Goodyear  v.  Congress  Rubber  Co.  India-rubber.  Inter- 
pretation of  license.     3  Blatch.  419. 

Goodyear  v.  Day.  India-rubber.  Trial  by  jury  in  equity. 
Province  of  court.    Want  of  novelty.     2  Wall.  Jr.  283. 


48  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Goodyear  v.  Dunbar.  India-rubber.  Granting  injunctions. 
Bonajide  issue.     3  Wall.  Jr.  310;  1  Fisher,  472. 

Goodyear  v.  Evans.  India-rubber.  Infringement,  process, 
particular  patent.     6  Blatch.  121;  3  Fisher,  390. 

Goodyear  v.  Hills.  India-rubber.  Proper  parties.  Dedica- 
tion to  public.  Practice.  Preliminary  injunctions.  3 
Fisher,  134. 

Goodyear  v.  Housinger.  India-rubber.  Preliminary  injunc- 
tions, prior  decisions.  License.  Laches.  Conditional 
injunctions.     2  Bissell,  1 ;  3  Fisher,  147. 

Goodyear  v.  Hullihen.  India-rubber.  Jurisdiction  in 
equity.  Administrator  not  to  be  proved.  Seal  of  notary. 
Parties  to  bill.  Lack  of  patent  lawyers  as  reason  for  delay. 
Reasons  for  patent  law.  Reasons  for  preliminary  injunc- 
tions.    2  Hughes,  492;  3  Fisher,  251. 

Goodyear  v.  Lunsford.  India-rubber.  Jurisdiction  in  equity. 
Administrator  not  to  be  proved.  Seal  of  notary.  Parties 
to  bill.  Lack  of  patent  lawyers  as  reason  for  delay.  Rea- 
sons for  patent  law.  Reasons  for  preliminary  injunctions. 
2  Hughes,  492. 

Goodyear  v.  Matthews.  Hard  metal  buttons.  Prior  use 
under  act  of  1793,  original  inventor.  Patentee  of  part.  1 
Paine,  300;  1  Robb,  50. 

Goodyear  v.  McBarney.  India-rubber.  Suits  by  licensee  in 
name  of  patentee.     3  Blatch.  32. 

Goodyear  \k  Mullee.  India-rubber.  Attachment  for  con- 
tempt. Violations  of  injunctions.  Infringement.  5  Blatch. 
429 ;  3  Fisher,  209. 

Goodyear  v.  Mullee.  India-rubber.  Preliminary  injunc- 
tion, long  use,  previous  decision.     3  Fisher,  420. 

Goodyear  v.  Mullee.  India-rubber.  Reference  to  Master. 
Intent  of  defendant  to  violate  injunction.  5  Blatch.  463;  3 
Fisher,  259. 

Goodyear  v.  New  Jersey  Central  Railroad.  India-rubber. 
Preliminary  injunction,  doubt  of  infringement,  long  use 
and  acquiescence,  proper  parties.  Infringement,  process. 
Patents  for  processes.     2  Wall.  Jr.  356 ;  1  Fisher,  626. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  49 

Goodyear  v.  New  York  Gutta-percha  Co.  India-rubber. 
Original  inventor.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  com- 
position.    2  Fisher,  312. 

Goodyear  v.  Puelps.  India-rubber.  Directors  and  agents  of 
corporations  are  responsible  for  infringements.  3  Blatch. 
91. 

Goodyear  v.  Providence  Rubber  Co.  India-rubber.  Mo- 
tion for  feigned  issues.  Powers  of  circuit  courts.  Parties, 
executors.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Extension, 
false  representations.  Original  inventor.  Infringement, 
license.     2  Cliff.  351 ;  2  Fisher,  499. 

Goodyear  v.  Rust.  India-rubber.  Infringement,  particular 
patent.     6  Blatch.  229;  3  Fisher,  456. 

Goodyear  v.  Toby.  India-rubber.  No  certificate  of  counsel 
with  plea.     Pleading,  parties.     6  Blatch.  130. 

Goodyear  v.  Union  Rubber  Co.  India-rubber.  License, 
jurisdiction.     Citizenship.     4  Blatch.  63. 

Goodyear  v.  "Wait.  India-rubber.  Authority  of  Commissioner 
to  reissue.  Patentability.  Two  reissues.  Clearness  in  speci- 
fication. Dedication  to  public.  5  Blatch.  468;  3  Fisher, 
242. 

Goodyear  v.  Wingerter.  India-rubber.  Jurisdiction  in 
equity.  Administrator  not  to  be  proved.  Seal  of  notary. 
Parties  to  bill.  Lack  of  patent  lawyers  as  reason  for  delay. 
Reasons  for  patent  law.  Reasons  for  preliminary  injunc- 
tions.    2  Hughes,  492. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Benjamin.  Artificial 
gums,  &c.     Settled  by  prior  decisions.     6  Off.  Gaz.  154. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Davis.  Artificial 
gums,  &c.  Prior  decisions.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringe- 
ment, substantial  equivalents.     12  Off.  Gaz.  Oct.  2,  i. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Dickerson.  13.  Off. 
Gaz.  325.     (See  Same  v.  Osgood.) 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Evans. ^  (See  Good- 
year V.  Evans.) 

1  Probably  a  misprint  in  3  Fisher's  Pat.  Cas.  390. 
4 


50  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Goodyear  Dextal  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Flagg.  Artificial 
gums,  &c.     Prior  decisions  settle  it.     9  Off.  Gaz.  153. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Gardner.  Artificial 
gums,  &c.  Interpretation  of  written  instruments.  Want 
of  novelty.  Original  inventor.  Patent /)/-»na /aeze  evidence. 
Infringement.     3  Cliff.  408;  4  Fisher,  224. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Ireland.  Artificial 
gums,  &c.     Prior  decisions  settle  it.     6  Off.  Gaz.  154. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Lowe.  13  Off.  Gaz.  325. 
(See  Same  v.  Osgood.) 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Osgood.  Artificial 
gums,  &c.  Taxation  of  costs,  in  several  cases  with  but  one 
hearing.     13  Off.  Gaz.  325. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Perry.  Artificial 
gums,  &c.     Prior  decisions  settle  it.     6  Off.  Gaz.  154. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Preterre.  Artificial 
gums,  &c.  AVhat  are  infringements  of  the  Cummings 
patent.     14  Off.  Gaz.  346. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Root.  Artificial  gums, 
&c.     Prior  decisions  settle  it.     6  Off.  Gaz.  154. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Schemerhorn.  Arti- 
ficial gums,  &c.     Prior  decisions.     6  Off.  Gaz.  154. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Smith.  Artificial 
gums,  &c.  Interpretation  of  particular  patent.  Reissue 
not  for  same  invention.  Original  inventor.  Public  use. 
Want  of  novelty.    Utility.    1  Holmes,  354;  5  Off.  Gaz.  585. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Van  Antwerp.  Arti- 
ficial gums,  &c.  Master's  report.  Profits  and  damages 
under  the  patent  act.     9  Off.  Gaz.  497. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Wetherber.  Arti- 
ficial gums,  &c.  Corporation  as  plaintiff.  Proceedings  of 
Commissioner  in  granting  reissues.  Infringement.  Origi- 
nal inventor.  Abandonment.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention.    2  Cliff.  555 ;  3  Fisher,  87. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  51 

Goodyear  Dextal  Vulcaxite  Co.  v.  Willis.  Artificial 
gums,  &c.  Bound  by  previous  decisions.  Circuit  courts  form 
one  system.  Patentability.  Abandonment.  Foreign  pat- 
ent by  third  person.     7  Off.  Gaz.  41. 

Gorham  v.  Mixter.  Hat-machine.  Tnfringement,  change  of 
form,  mechanical  equivalents.  1  Am.  L.  J.  (8  Penn.  L.  J.) 
539. 

Gottfried  v.  Bartiiolomae  &  Roesixg.  Pitching  bai-rels. 
Want  of  novelty,  particular  patent.     13  Off.  Gaz.  1128. 

Gould,  Hexry  W.,  Ex  parte.  Advertising  apparatus.  Ap- 
peal from  Commissioner.  Refusal  to  issue  a  patent.  Com- 
bination.    1  McArthur,  410;  5  Off.  Gaz.  121. 

Gould  v.  Ballard.  Trunks.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention. 
Want  of  novelty,  particular  patent.     13  Off.  Gaz.  1081. 

Gould  v.  Rees.  Steam-engines.  Patentability.  Infringe- 
ment, combination,  equivalents.  15  Wall.  187;  2  Off.  Gaz. 
624. 

Gould's  Maxufacturixg  Co.  v.  Cowixg.  Gas-pumps.  Mas- 
ter's report,  damages.  Burden  of  proof.  12  Blatch.  243. 
8  Off.  Gaz.  277. 

Gould's  Maxufacturixg  Co.  v.  Cowixg.  Gas-pumps. 
Master's  report,  damages,  profits.  Nominal  damages.  14 
Blatch.  315;  12  Off.  Gaz.  942. 

GowER,  Ex  PARTE.  Pneumatic  signal  telephones.  Interferences 
are  for  Commissioner.     15  Off.  Gaz.  828. 

Graham  v.  Gammox.  Harvesters.  Suggestion  not  patentable. 
Want  of  novelty.     Infringement.     7  Bissell,  49. 

Graham  v.  Masox.  Looms.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention. 
Clearness  of  pleadings  in  equity.  Patent  prima  facie  evi- 
dence. Want  of  novelty.  Burden  of  proof  of  infringement. 
5  Fisher,  1. 

Graham  r.  !Masox.  Looms.  Master's  report.  Rule  of  dam- 
ages. Selling  the  parts  of  infringing  meclianism.  1  Holmes. 
88;  5  Fisher,  290;  1  Off.  Gaz.  G09. 


62  PATENT     CASE    INDEX. 

Grant  v.  Raymond.  Hat-machine.  Uncertainty  in  specifi- 
cation. Power  of  Secretary  of  State  of  United  States  to 
accept  a  surrender  and  reissue.  Object  of  patent  law. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Public  use.  6  Peters,  218; 
1  Robb,  604. 

Gray  v.  Hulshizer.  Horse-power.  Decree.  13  Off.  Gaz. 
X,  Jan.  15. 

Gray  w.  James.  Nail-machines.  Charge  to  jury.  Infringement, 
mode  of  operation.  Original  inventor.  Defective  specifi- 
cation.    Abandonment.    Peters  C.  C.  394;  1  Robb,  120. 

Gray  v.  James.  Nail-machines.  Motion  for  new  trial.  Ver- 
dict against  evidence.  Want  of  novelty.  Declaration 
must  show  title.  Defects  cured  by  verdict.  Peters  C.  C. 
476;  1  Robb,  140. 

G  RE  AXON  V.  Griffin.  Wood  pavement.  State  authority  to 
use  a  patented  article.     4  Abb.  n.  s.  (N.  Y.)  310. 

Greely,  Benjamin,  Ex  parte.  Suspender-straps.  Rejection 
of  patent.  Want  of  novelty.  Construction  of  particular 
patent.     1  Holmes,  284;  6  Fisher,  575;  4  Off.  Gaz.  612. 

Green  v.  Willard  Improved  Barrel  Co.  Lister.  Recoup- 
ment. Unliquidated  damages.  Inventions  by  employe. 
State  courts  have  no  jurisdiction  over  validity  of  patents. 
1  Mo.  App.  202. 

Gkegerson  v.  Imlay.  Car-trucks.  Preliminary  injunction. 
Contract  void  for  champerty  and  maintenance.  4  Blatch. 
503. 

Groff  v.  Hansel.  Sash-lock.  Note,  false  representations, 
competency  of  defense.     33  Md.  161. 

Grosjean  v.  Peck,  Stow,  and  Wilcox  Co.  Spoons  and  forks. 
Interpretation  of  particular  patent.  Validity  of  reissues. 
Utility.     Infringement.     11  Blatch.  54. 

Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Butler.  Sewing- 
machine.  Note.  State  legislation  in  patents.  53  Ind. 
454. 

Gkover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Sloat.  Sewing- 
machine.  Corporations  in  other  States.  Defenses  in 
answer.  Nonjoinder  of  parties.  Want  of  novelty.  2 
■      Fisher,  112. 


LIST     OF    CASES.  53 

Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Williams.  Sew- 
ing-machine. Preliminaiy  injunctions.  Ex  parte  affidavits. 
Prima  facie  rights  of  patentee.  Acquiescence.  Previous 
suits.  License  held  by  plaintiffs.  Infringement,  combina- 
tion.    2  Fisher,  133. 

GuiDET  V.  Barber.  Stone  pavement.  Reissue  not  for  same 
invention.  Patentability.  Want  of  novelty.  Notice  of 
defense  in  answer.     5  Off.  Gaz.  149. 

GuiDET  V.  Palmer  (or  City  of  Brooklyn).  Stone  pavement. 
Preliminary  injunctions.  Acquiescence,  mere  lapse  of 
time.    lOBlatch.  217;  6  Fisher,  82. 

GuiDET  V.  City  of  Brooklyn.     Stone  pavement.     Infringe- 
ment, particular  patent.     13  Off.  Gaz.  773. 
GuNSTOCK  Co.     (See  Blanchard  Gunstock  Co.) 

Gutta-percha  and  Rubber  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Good- 
year Rubber  Co.  India-rubber.  What  bill  should  show. 
Knowledge  of  witness  better  than  opinion.     3  Sawyer,  51:2. 

GuYON  V.  Serrell.  Compound  lever.  Damages,  three  times 
actual  damages.  Disclaimer  after  suit  brought.  No  costs 
allowed.  Power  of  court  to  increase  damages.  1  Blatch. 
244. 

H. 

Hailes  v.  Van  Wormer.  Stoves.  Interpretation  of  particular 
patent.  Combination  of  old  elements  with  new  results  dis- 
tinguished from  a  mere  aggregation  of  old  elements  and 
results.     7  Blatch.  443. 

Hailes  v.  Van  Wormer.  Stoves.  Patentability,  new  com- 
bination, new  result.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement. 
•      Above  affirmed.     20  Wall.  353 ;  5  Off.  Gaz.  89. 

Hair  Co.     (See  Muscan  Hair,  &c.  Co.) 

Hale  v.  Stimpson.  Shaping  irregular  wood.  Comparison  of 
the  machines.  Combination  of  old  parts.  What  is  infringe- 
ment?    2  Fisher,  5G5. 

Hall  v.  Bird.  Stretching  chains.  Utility.  Machine  made 
and  put  in  cellar  held  an  abandoned  invention.  6  Blatch. 
438;  3  Fisher,  595. 


54  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

Hall  v.  Orvis.  Filter,  Rescission  of  contract,  false  repre- 
sentations.    35  Iowa,  366. 

Hall  v.  Speer.  Plows.  Practice,  injunctions.  Not  granted 
where  there  has  been  long  adverse  possession  by  defendants. 
Recording  assignments.     6  Pitts.  L.  J.  403. 

Hall  v.  Wiles.  Brick-press.  Charge  to  jury.  Disclaimer 
not  filed  before  suit  brought,  no  costs  allowed.  Unreason- 
able negligence.  Result  not  patentable,  but  important  iu 
cases  of  improvements  of  old  contrivance.     2  Blatch.  194. 

Hall  &  Co.  v.  Jones.  Vehicle  hubs.  Interpretation  of  par- 
ticular patent.     14  Off.  Gaz.  378. 

Halsey  v.  Garlick.  Wagon-gearing.  Particular  patent. 
Decree.     12  Off.  Gaz.  1026. 

Hamilton  v.  Ives.  Saw-mills.  Motion  for  new  trial.  Draw- 
ings a  part  of  specification.  Effect  of  drawings  in  limiting 
the  patent.  New  combinations  of  old  elements.  Interpre- 
tation of  particular  patent.     6  Fisher,  244  ;  3  Off.  Gaz.  30. 

Hamilton  v.  Kingsbury.  Saw-mill.  Territorial  assignment. 
"Legal  representatives"  includes  "assignees."  14  Off. 
Gaz.  448. 

Hamilton  v.  Simons.  Contempt.  After  injunction,  defend- 
ant can  not  leave  out  some  parts  and  go  ahead.  Advice  of 
counsel  is  no  justification.     5  Bissell,  77. 

Hammer  v.  Barnes.  Ale-brewing.  Parties.  Patents  pro- 
tected in  State  courts.     26  How.  (N.  Y.)  174, 

Hammond  v.  Organ  Co.  Melodeons,  &c.  License  as  a  defense. 
Intei-pretation  of  contract.  1  Holmes,  296 ;  6  Fisher,  599 ; 
5  Off.  Gaz.  31. 

Hammond  v.  Organ  Co.  Melodeons,  &c.  License  as  a  de- 
fense. Interpretation  of  contract.  Above  affirmed.  2 
Otto,  724. 

Hank's  Case.  New  drawings  may  be  added  in  reissue.  2 
A.  L.  T.  (U,  S.)  R.  129. 

Hardesty  v.  Smith.  Lamp.  Note,  consideration.  Pleas  held 
bad  on  demurrer.     3  Ind.  39. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  65 

Harlow  v.  Putnam.  Grate-bars.  Exclusive  license,  void 
patent,  no  consideration.     124  Mass.  553. 

Uarmox  v.  Bird.  Threshing-machine.  Xote,  consideration, 
misnomer  of  invention  iu  conveyance.  22  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
113. 

Hart,  Bhven,  and  Mead  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Sargeant 
&  Co.  Carpenters'  squares.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringe- 
ment.    14  Oif .  Gaz.  45. 

Hartshorn  v.  Almy.  Curtain-fixtures.  Interpretation  of 
particular  patents.  Infringement.  1  Holmes,  493 ;  8  Off. 
Gaz.  94. 

Hartshorn  v.  Day.  India-rubber.  License  as  a  defense. 
Interpretation  of  contract.  Attempt  to  rescind.  Right  to 
rescind.     19  How.  211. 

Hartshorn  v.  Shorey.  Curtain-fixtures.  Want  of  novelty. 
Infringement.     Particular  patent.     9  Off.  Gaz.  595. 

Hartshorn  r.  Tripp.  Curtain-fixtures.  Same  mode  of  opera- 
tion as  infringement.     7  Blatch,  120. 

Harvester  Co.  (See  Dorsey  Revolving  Harvester 
Rake  Co.) 

Harwood  v.  Mill  River  Woollen  Manufacturing  Co. 
Oiling  wool.  Foreign  patents  met  by  showing  their  worth- 
lessness.    Interpretation  of  particular  patent.    3  Fisher,  526. 

Haselden  v.  Ogden.  Pumps.  Charge  to  jury.  Private  use 
not  known  to  public  does  not  anticipate  the  patent.  Orig- 
inal inventor.     What  infringement  is.     3  Fisher,  378. 

Haskell  v.  Shoe  Machinery  Manufacturing  Co.  Sewing- 
machines.  Original  inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence. 
15  Off.  Gaz.  509. 

Hat  Blocking  Machine  Co.  (See  Eickermeyer  Hat  Body 
Machine  Co.) 

Hathaway  v.  Roach.  Cooking-stove.  Right  to  costs,  dis- 
cretion of  court,  models,  copies  of  patents,  fees  of  witnesses 
during  a  few  days'  suspension.     2  W.  &  M.  63. 

Haven  v.  Brown.  Bedstead-fastenings.  General  allegation 
of  infringement  in  bill,  without  specifying  particulars,  is 
good.     6  Fisher,  413. 


56  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Haaves  v.  Antisdel.  Hotel-register.  AVant  of  novelty. 
Amount  of  proof  of  prior  use  and  knowledge  required.  8 
Off.  Gaz.  685. 

Hawes  v.  Cook.  Hotel-register.  Prior  decisions.  5  Off.  Gaz. 
493. 

Hawes  v.  Gage.  Hotel-register.  Charge  to  jury.  Damages, 
profits.  Construction,  of  particular  patent.  5  Off.  Gaz. 
494. 

Hawes  v.  Twogood.  Assignment  of  error  in  Iowa.  Admis- 
sibility of  evidence.  Note,  warranty  of  patent.  12  Iowa, 
582. 

Hawes  v.  Washburne,  Hotel-register.  Charge  to  jury. 
Patent  for  invention,  and  not  for  design.  Patent  prima 
facie  evidence  of  novelty.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement, 
intention.     5  Off.  Gaz.  491. 

Haavkes  v.  Remington.  Nickel-plating.  Identity  of  two 
patents  not  apparent  on  their  face  is  for  jury.  Ill  Mass. 
171. 

Hawks  v.  Swett.  Stoves.  Pleading,  admissibility  of  decree  of 
United  States  courts.  Assignment,  contract  to  pay  royalty, 
void  patent,  not  estopped.  4  Hun  (N.  Y.),  146 ;  6  Th.  &  C. 
(N.  Y.)  529. 

Hawley  v.  Mitchell.  Felting-machine.  Machines  sold  by 
assignee  pass  out  of  monopoly  of  patent,  those  by  licensee 
do  not.     1  Holmes,  42;  4  Fisher,  388;  1  Off.  Gaz.  306. 

Hayden  v.  Suffolk  Manufacturing  Co.  Cotton-cleaners. 
Charge  to  jury.  What  patents  are.  Prima  facie  evidence 
of  original  inventor.  Want  of  novelty.  Memory  of  man 
as  testimony  on  point  of  anticipation.  Province  of  jury. 
Burden  of  proof  of  old  machine.  Infringement.  4  Fisher, 
86. 

Hays  v.  Sulsor.  Drain-plows.  Charge  to  jury.  Utility. 
Want  of  novelty.  Notice  of  time  and  place  of  prior  use. 
Printed  publications.  Infringement,  damages.  1  Bond, 
279;  1  Fisher,  532. 

Head  v.  Stevens.  Cider-mill.  Defective  specification.  19 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  411. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  57 

Heaton  v.  Quintard.  Ships'  armor.  Patented  article  put  on 
government  vessel  by  government's  order  is  no  infringement 
in  the  workman.     7  Blatch.  73. 

Hecker  v.  Rumford  Chemical  Works.  (See  Attorney- 
General  EX  REL.  Hecker.) 

Heilner  v.  Battin.  Coal-screener.  Estoppel  by  covenant  to 
dispute  the  validity  of  patent.  Want  of  novelty.  Reissue 
not  for  same  invention,  question  for  jury.  Agreement  of 
counsel  about  evidence  may  not  be  accepted  by  the  com-t. 
Authority  of  partners.     27  Penn.  St.  517. 

Heinrich  v.  Luther.  Tailors'  shears.  Patent  is /)nma  yaae 
evidence  of  right  of  patentee.  Want  of  novelty.  6  McLean, 
345. 

Helm  v.  First  National  Bank  of  Huntington.  State 
legislation  in  patent  cases.     43  lud.  167. 

Henderson  v.  Cleveland  Co-operative  Stove  Co.  Coal 
stove.  Construction  of  particular  patent.  Claims  for  re- 
sults.    Abandonment.     Infringement.     12  Off.  Gaz.  4. 

Hendrie  v.  Sayles.  Car-brake.  Assignment  before  issue. 
Issue  to  assignee.  Assignee  has  right  to  get  extension. 
8  Otto,  546. 

Henry  v.  Francestown  Soapstone  Stove  Co.  Stoves. 
Want  of  novelty.  Public  use  for  tvro  years.  Waiting  dur- 
ing experiments.     Non-joinder  of  parties.     9  Off.  Gaz.  408. 

Henry  v.  Providence  Tool  Co.  Fire-arms.  Expiration  of 
foreign  patents.  Vigilance.  Construction  of  act  of  Con- 
gress. Extensions.  Discretion  of  Commissioner.  Public 
use.     14  Off.  Gaz.  855. 

Herbert  v.  Adams.  Bedsteads.  Assignment  before  issue  is 
good.  After  assignment,  assignee  sues,  not  patentee.  4 
Mason,  15;  1  Robb,  505. 

Herring  v.  Gage.  Cooling  metal,  &c.  Reissue  not  for  same 
invention.  Reissues  in  general.  Original  inventor.  Want 
of  novelty.  Infringement.  14  Blatch.  293;  12  Off.  Gaz. 
753. 


68  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Herring  v.  Gas  Consumers'  Association.  Infringement  by 
joint  owner.     Damages.     13  Off.  Gaz.  637. 

Herring  v.  Nelson.  Cooling  metal,  &c.  Reissue  not  for 
same  invention.  Reissues  in  general.  Original  inventor. 
Want  of  novelty.  Infringement.  U  Blatch.  293;  12  Off. 
Gaz.  753. 

Hess  v.  Young.  Grain-screener.  Pleading,  fraud.  Misrepre- 
sentations in  contract.     Means  of  knowledge.    59  Ind.  379. 

Hiatt  v.  Twomey.  Water-wheels.  No  implied  warranty  in 
sale  of  patent-right.     1  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  (N.  C.)  315. 

Hicks  v.  Kelsey.  Wagon-reach.  Want  of  novelty.  Change 
of  material.     18  Wall.  670;  5  Off.  Gaz.  94. 

Hide  and  Leather  Splitting  Co.  (See  American  Hide 
AND  Leather  Splitting  Co.) 

Higgins  v.  Strong.  Truss.  Note.  Patent  rights  by  statute 
only.    Assignment  must  be  recorded.    4  Blackf.  (Ind.)  182. 

Hike  v.  Providence  Railroad  (should  be  Pike,  q.  v.). 

Hill  v.  Houghton.     Spelling-blocks.     Patentability,  state  of 

art.     6  Off.  Gaz.  3. 
Hill  v.  Thuermer.     Burning  lime.     Note,  consideration.     13 

Ind.  351. 

Hill  v.  Whitcomb.  Printing-presses.  Territorial  grantee 
must  sue  in  name  of  patentee.  Suit  in  his  own  name  does 
not  arise  under  patent  laws,  and  is  not  in  jurisdiction  of 
federal  courts.     1  Holmes,  317;  5  Off.  Gaz.  430. 

Hitchcock  v.  Tremaine.  Tremolo  attachment  for  organs. 
Interpretation  of  particular  patent.  Patents  for  a  principle. 
Want  of  novelty.     8  Blatch.  440;  4  Fisher,  508. 

Hitchcock  v.  Tremaine.  Tremolo  attachment  for  organs. 
Motion  for  rehearing,  want  of  proper  expert  testimony, 
newly  discovered  evidence.  9  Blatch.  550;  5  Fisher,  537; 
1  Off.  Gaz.  633. 

Hitchcock  v.  Tremaine.  Tremolo  attachment  for  organs. 
Master's  report.  Gains  and  profits,  wrong  estimate.  Gen- 
eral expenses.     9  Blatch.  385;  5  Fisher,  310. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  69 

HocKHOLZER  V.  Eager.  Timber-framing  machine.  Prelimi- 
nary injunctions  when  no  prior  decisions,  exclusive  pos- 
session must  be  shown,  laches,  inconvenience  to  parties. 
2  Sawyer,  361. 

Hodge  v.  Hudson  River  Railroad.  Car-brakes.  Infringe- 
ment, license.     6  Blatch.  85;  3  Fisher,  410. 

Hodge  v.  Hudson  River  Railroad.  Car-brakes.  License, 
effect  of  extension.  Where  validity  of  patent  has  been 
fully  established,  an  injunction  will  be  granted,  though  very 
damaging  to  the  defendant.     6  Blatch.  165. 

Hodge  v.  Irox  Mountain  Railroad.  Car-brakes.  Mis- 
joinder of  plaintiffs,  how  taken  advantage  of.  1  Dillon,  104; 
4  Fisher,  161. 

Hodge  v.  New  York  and  Harlem  Railroad.  Car-brakes. 
Infringement,  license.     6  Blatch.  85;  3  Fisher,  410. 

Hodge  v.  North  Missouri  Railroad.  Car-brakes.  Mis- 
joinder of  plaintiffs,  how  taken  advantage  of.  1  Dillon, 
104;  4  Fisher,  161. 

Hoe  v.  Simpson.  Saws.  Effect  or  function  not  patentable, 
must  state  means.  Infringement,  comparison  of  the  two 
machines.     6  Off.  Gaz.  435. 

Hoe  &  Co.  v.  Cole  &  Co.  Printers'  galleys.  Original  in- 
ventor.    Infringement.     13  Off.  Gaz.  500. 

Hoeltze  v.  Hoeller.  Elbows  of  stove-pipes.  Jurisdiction. 
Patents  surreptitiously  obtained.     2  Bond,  386. 

HoFFHEiMS  V.  Brandt.  Horse-rakes.  Equity  jurisdiction 
over  patents  is  as  full  as  that  at  law.  Fraud  of  plaintiff 
prevents  relief.  Reissues  must  be  for  what  is  described  or 
shown  in  original.  Degree  of  utility  required.  Patent 
prima  facie  evidence  of  novelty.  Reissue  prima  facie  evi- 
dence that  it  was  not  abandoned.     3  Fisher,  218. 

Hoffman  v.  Aronson.  Paper  collars.  Interpretation  of  par- 
ticular patent.  Want  of  novelty.  False  suggestion. 
Infringement.     8  Blatch.  324;  4  Fisher,  456. 

Hoffman  v.  Stiefel.  Paper  collars.  Validity  of  particular 
patent.     7  Blatch.  58;  3  Fisher,  638. 


60  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Hogg-  v.  Emerson.  Steam-engine.  Case  coming  up  by  discre- 
tion comes  up  as  a  lohole.  Drawings  and  specification  must 
be  construed  with  patent.  Patentee  may  recover  for 
infringement  during  interval  betvreen  fire  of  1836  and  re- 
storing of  records.     6  How.  457;  2  Robb,  655. 

Hogg   v.   Emerson.      Steam-engine.      Drawings   ai-e  part  of 

specification.     Price  paid  for  license  may  be  considered  by 

jury  in  settling  damages.     11  How.  587. 
HoLBROOK  V.  Matthews.      Seed-planter.     Want  of  novelty. 

Mere  change  of  material.     10  Off.  Gaz.  508. 
HoLBROOK  V.  Small.     Seed-planter.     Want  of  novelty.    Mere 

change  of  material.     10  Oif .  Gaz.  508. 
HoLDEN  V.  Curtis.     Spirit  purifier.     General  principle  of  sale 

without  title  of  personal  property.     Assignments  of  patents. 

Recording.     Patentability.     2  N.  H.  61. 

HoLLiDA  V.  Hunt.  State  legislation,  sales  of  patents.  Rights 
of  patentees  are  United  States  rights.  Parol  evidence  to 
vary  written  contracts.     70  111.  109. 

HoLLiDAY  V.  Rheem.  Water-wheel.  Uncertainty  in  specifica- 
tion. Want  of  novelty.  Combination  patents.  18  Penn. 
St.  465. 

HdLLY  V.  Union  City.  Water-supply.  Interpretation  of  par- 
ticular'patent  and  decree.     14  Off.  Gaz.  5. 

Hopkins  and  Dickinson  Manufacturing  Co.   v.  Corbin. 

Sash-fasteners.  Infringement,  construction  of  joint  patent 
modified  by  prior  patent  of  one  joint  inventor.  14  Blatch. 
396;  14  Off.  Gaz.  3. 

Hopkins  and  Dickinson  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Parker  and 
Whipple  Manufacturing  Co.  Sash-fasteners.  In- 
fringement, construction  of  joint  patent  modified  by  prior 
patent  of  one  joint  inventor.  14  Blatch.  396;  14  Off. 
Gaz.  3. 

Hotchkiss  v.  Greenwood.  Door-knobs.  Change  of  material 
not  patentable.  Patentability.  4  McLean,  456;  2  Robb, 
730. 

Hotchkiss  v.  Greenwood.  Door-knobs.  Want  of  novelty, 
change  of  material,  effect.    Above  affirmed.    11  How.  248. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  61 

HoTCHKiss  V.  Oliver.  Water-wheel.  Disclaimers,  unrea- 
sonable delay.  Vendee's  election  to  recede  or  not.  Validity 
of  patents.     5  Denio  (N.  Y.),  314. 

HouGHTOX  V.  Rowley.     Fruit-jars.    Agreement,  construction. 

9  Phila.  (Penn.)  288. 

House  v.  Youxg.  Electric  baths.  Reissue  of  older  patent  is 
complete  defence  in  the  absence  of  fraud.  Both  are  prima 
facie  valid.     3  Fisher,  335. 

HovEY  V.  Hexry.  Straw-cutter.  Prior  sale  for  two  years. 
Abandonment.     3  West.  L.  J.  153. 

Hovey  v.  Rurber  Tip  Pexcil  Co.  Pencil-tips.  Rights  of 
patentees.  Notice  to  public.  Xo  State  jurisdiction  on 
validity  of  patents.     33  N.  Y.  Supr.  522. 

Hovey  v.  Stevexs.  Tool-grinders.  Interpretation  of  particu- 
lar patent.  Original  inventor.  Want  of  novelty.  In- 
junction refused,  short  time  since  issue.  1  W.  &  M.  290;  2 
Robb,  479. 

Hovey  v.  Stevexs.  Tool-grinders.  Interpretation  of  particu- 
lar patent.  Patentability.  Allowance  of  costs.  3  W.  & 
M.  17;    2  Robb,  567. 

Howard   v.    Christy.     Paper  for  roofs.     Particular  patent. 

10  Off.  Gaz.  981. 

Howe  v.  Abbott.  Mattress.  Result  not  patentable.  Com- 
bination and  entire  process  is  not  infringed  by  combination 
Sind  part  of  the  process.     2  Story,  190;  2  Robb,  99. 

Howe  v.  Mortox.  Sewing-machine.  Preliminary  injunctions. 
State  of  the  art.  Infringement.  Foreign  patents.  Short 
time  to  run.     Defendant  gives  bonds.     1  Fisher,  5SG. 

Howe  v.  Newtox.  Boot-trees.  Public  use.  Abandonment. 
Purchase  from  licensee  as  defense.  Damage  to  defendant. 
2  Fisher,  531. 

Howe  v.  Uxderwood.  Sewing-machine.  Original  inventor. 
Abandoned  experiments.  Interested  witnesses.  Interpre- 
tation of  the  machine.  State  of  the  art.  Old  remains.  1 
Fisher,  160. 


62  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Howe  v.  AVilliams.  Sewing-machine.  Motions  for  trial  at 
law,  when  gi-anted.  Original  inventor.  Interpretation  of 
particular  patent.  Want  of  novelty.  Abandonment,  ac- 
quiescence in  use  by  public.  Infringement,  combination. 
2  Fisher,  395. 

HowK  V.  WooLDREDGE.  Sewing-machine.  Suit  to  recover 
royalties.  Interpretation  of  contract.  Object  of  patent 
laws.     Effect  of  sale  of  patented  article.     12  Allen,  18. 

Howes  v.  McNeal.  Grain-separator.  Want  of  novelty,  re- 
jected applications  are  not  evidence  of  completed  inventions. 
Infringement,  effect  of  improvements.     15  Off.  Gaz.  G08. 

Howes  v.  Nute.  Extra  yards  for  topsails.  Feitent  prima  facie 
evidence  of  original  inventor.  Sufficiency  of  specification, 
how  determined.     AVant  of  novelty.     4  Fisher,  263. 

Hubbell  v.  United  States.  Shells.  Use  by  government  of 
patented  inventions,  amount  of  compensation.  Original 
inventor.     5  N.  &  H.  1. 

Hudson  v.  Draper.  Printing-type.  Burden  of  proof  of  in- 
fringement. Experts  as  witnesses.  Rule  of  damages.  4 
Fisher,  256. 

Hull  v.  Commissioner  of  Patents.  Mandamus.  Power  of 
Commissioner  of  Patents.  Patentability.  Duties  of  ex- 
aminers-in-chief and  assistants.  First  favorable  decision  is 
not  conclusive.     Remedy  for  rejection.     7  Off.  Gaz.  559. 

Hull  v.  Commissioner  of  Patents.  Rehearing.  Court 
will  not  compel  Connnissioner  to  issue  a  patent.  Above 
affirmed.     8  Off.  Gaz.  46. 

Hunt  v.  Hoover.  Making  sugar.  Breach  of  warranty,  false 
representations.  State  court  has  jurisdiction  in  such  cases. 
24  Iowa,  231. 

HussEY  V.  Bradley.  Reaper.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion. Disclaimer  by  mistake  in  original.  Patentability, 
want  of  novelty.  On  sale  two  years.  Burden  of  proof. 
Laches  in  getting  reissue.  Date  of  reissues.  Infringement, 
combination.  Lack  of  interest  in  one  defendant.  5  Blatch. 
134;  2  Fisher,  362. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  63 

HussEY  V.  Bradley.  Reaper.  Taxation  of  costs.  What  are 
allowable.     5  Blatch.  210. 

HusscY  V.  McCoRMiCK.  Reaper.  Admission  by  defendant. 
Original  inventor.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  1 
Bissell,  300;  1  Fisher,  509. 

HussEY  *'.  WniTELY.  Reaper.  Motion  to  dissolve  injunction. 
Interpretation  of  agreement.  "  Party  acjgrieved  "  under 
patent  law.  Power  to  dissolve  injunctions  by  district 
judges.  Five  presumptions  of  novelty.  Defendant's  in- 
jury no  ground  for  dissolving  injunction.  1  Bond,  407;  2 
Fisher,  120. 

Hyndman  v.  Roots.  Rotary  blower.  Infringement,  substan- 
tial equivalents,  palpable  evasion.  Interpretation  of  par- 
ticular patent^    7  Otto,  224;  13  Off.  Gaz.  868. 


Illinois  Central  Railroad  v.  Turrill.  (See  Cawood 
Patent.) 

Imlay  t'.  Norwich  and  Worcester  Railroad.  Railway- 
cars.  Account  where  injunction  cannot  be  granted  at  once. 
Infringement,  construction  of  patent  and  comparison  of 
machines.     4  Blatch.  227;  1  Fisher,  340. 

India-rubber  Comb  Co.  v.  Phelps.  Combs.  Motion  to 
amend  answer  after  decree.  Reasonable  diligence.  New 
parol  evidence.     Refused.     8  Blatch.  85;  4  Fisher,  315. 

Ingels  v.  Mast.  Grain-drills.  Master's  report.  Profits. 
Added  element  of  combination.  6  Fisher,  415;  7  Off.  Gaz. 
836. 

Ingersoll  v.  Benham.  Cuspadores.  Master's  report,  dam- 
ages and  profits.  Costs.  Nominal  damages.  14  Blatch. 
541;  13  Off.  Gaz.  966. 

Ingersoll  v.  Musgrove.  Cuspadores.  ^Master's  report,  dam- 
ages and  profits.  Costs.  Nominal  damages.  14  Blatch. 
541 ;  13  Off.  Gaz.  966. 

Ingersoll  v.  Turner.  Cuspadores.  '^\niat  "cuspadore" 
means.     Want  of  novelty.     12  Off.  Gaz.  189. 


64  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Iron  Works.  (See  Boston  and  Fairhaven  Iron  Works; 
Pacific  Iron  Works.) 

Iron  and  Nail  Factory.  (See  Troy  Iron  and  Nail  Fac- 
tory.) 

Irwin  y.  Dane.  Lamps.  Granting  of  preliminary  injunctions, 
discretion  of  the  court.  Damage  to  plaintiff  to  refuse.  2 
Bissell,  442;  4  Fisher,  359. 

Irwin  v.  Dane.  Lamps.  Interpretation  of  particular  patent. 
Want  of  novelty.  Original  inventor.  Infringement.  9 
Off.  Gaz.  642. 

Isaacs  r.  Abrams.  Brooms  for  railways.  Want  of  novelty. 
Change  of  material,  change  of  form.  Original  inventor. 
14  Off.  Gaz.  861. 

Isaacs  v.  Cooper.  Circular  plane.  Practice,  injunctions  in 
equity.  Defective  specification.  Doubt.  4  Wash.  259; 
1  Robb,  332. 

Ives  v.  Hamilton.  Saw-mills.  Infringement,  same  means. 
Patents  for  improvements  need  not  describe  machine  im- 
proved on.     2  Otto,  426;  10  Off.  Gaz.  336. 


J. 

Jackson  v.  Allen.  Chairs  for  theatres.  Construction  of 
patents  is  for  the  court.  Infringement  for  the  jury.  Con- 
tract. AVant  of  novelty.  Estoppel  by  deed  and  in  pais. 
120  Mass.  64. 

Jackson  v.  Breck.  Mowing-machine.  Decree.  11  Off.  Gaz. 
112. 

Jacobs  v.  Baker.  Jails  and  prisons.  Improvement  in  plan 
of  building  jails  not  patentable.  Original  inventor.  7 
Wall.  295. 

Jacobs  v.  Commissioners  of  Hamilton  County.  Jails  and 
prisons.  Commissioners  are  a  quasi  corporation  only,  and 
not  liable  for  infringement,  but  the  conti-actor  is.  General 
law  of  corporation's  liability  in  tort.  1  Bond,  500  ;  4 
Fisher,  81. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  65 

Jeffries  v.  Wiesteu.  Vapor-burner.  Bill  ior  reassignment. 
Agent  employed  to  sell,  buys  himself.  Sale  annulled. 
Vendor  entitled  to  account.  Compensation  of  agent. 
Amount  of  proceeds  to  be  accounted  for.     2  Sawyer,  135. 

Jenkins  v.  Abbotts.  Concrete  pavement.  Contract,  royalty. 
Void  patent.  No  consideration.  Parol  agreement  void 
by  Statute  of  Frauds.     5i  N.  H.  447. 

Jenkins  v.  Greenwald.  Planing-machine.  Jurisdiction. 
Assignee's  right  to  injunction  is  by  statute.  Defendants 
stopping  after  service  of  injunction  no  reason  why  it 
should  not  be  made  perpetual.  Right  to  make  and  to  use 
are  separate  rights.  Infringement.  1  Bond,  126  ;  2 
Fisher,  37. 

Jenkins  r.  Johnson.  Elastic  packing.  Construction  of  par- 
ticular patent.  Want  of  novelty.  State  of  art.  9  Blatch. 
516  ;  5  Fisher,  433. 

Jenkins  v.  Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  Wood  pavement.  As- 
signment, construction  of  habendum  clause.  1  Abbott, 
567;  4  Fisher,  201. 

Jenkins  v.  Walker.  Elastic  packing.  Defenses  set  up  in 
answer  must  be  proved.  Want  of  novelty.  Invention  of 
compound  should  state  proportions  of  ingredients.  1 
Holmes,  120;  5  Fisher,  347;  1  Off.  Gaz.  359. 

JoHNSEN  V.  Beard.  Cotton  bale-ties.  Different  drawing  for 
reissue.  Defendant  allowed  to  prove  state  at  time  of 
original.     Original  inventor.     8  Off.  Gaz.  435. 

JoHNSEN  V.  Passman.  Cotton  bale-ties.  Patent  prima  facie 
evidence  against  abandonment.  Principles  of  abandon- 
ment. Date  of  patent.  Infringement,  same  principle.  1 
Woods,  138;  5  Fisher,  471;  2  Off.  Gaz.  94. 

JonxsoN  r.  McCabe.  Fanning-mill.  Promissory  note.  No 
consideration.  False  representations.  Written  contract, 
parol  evidence.     37  Ind.  535. 

Johnson    v.    McCulloch.      Wood-splitting  machine.      Exact 
time  of  expiration  of  patents  is  last  hour  of  day.     Exten- 
sions applied  for  ninety  days  before.     It  takes  more  than 
a  model  to  anticipate  a  patent.     4  Fisher,  170. 
6 


66  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Johnson  v.  Root.  Sewing-machine.  Charge  to  jury.  Con- 
struction of  patents  by  court.  Patent  prima  facie  evidence. 
Original  inventor.  Infringement,  substantially  the  same 
machine.  Comparison  is  for  jury.  Evidence  of  experts. 
Race  of  diligence.     1  Fisher,  351. 

Johnson  v.  Root.  Sewing-machine.  Motion  for  new  trial. 
Patent  prima  facie  evidence  of  original  inventor.  Burden 
of  proof  of  earlier  date  by  plaintiff.  Date  of  inventions, 
laying  aside  part  and  then  restoring  it.  Abandonment. 
Damages  given  by  jury  contrary  to  instructions.  A  charge 
of  irregularity  must  be  proved.     2  Cliff.  108;  2  Fisher,  291. 

Johnson  v.  Willimantic  Linen  Co.  Dressing  thread.  Ad- 
missibility of  evidence.  Implied  warranty  on  sale  of 
patent.  Patent  prima  facie  evidence  of  novelty.  Con- 
struction of  particular  patent.     33  Conn.  436. 

JoLiFFE  V.  Collins.  Hay-rake.  Written  contract.  No 
warranty  by  parol.  Fiaud.  Total  failure  of  consideration. 
Worthless  note.     Set-off.     21  Mo.  338. 

JoNKS  V.  BuRNHAM.  Preserving  corn.  Estoppel  by  license  to 
dispute  original  inventor.  Patent /jn/Ha/atv'e  valid.  What 
a  license  is.  Note  without  consideration.  Fraud.  67 
Maine,  93. 

Jones  v.  Field.  Self-lubricating  axles.  Injunction  denied 
owing  to  short  time  since  issue  of  patent  and  no  adjudica- 
tion of  its  validity.     12  Blatch.  494. 

Jones  v.  Hodges.  Preserving  green  corn.  Preliminary  in- 
junctions. Not  granted  where  strong  doubt  of  novelty. 
Patentability.     1  Holmes,  37. 

Jones  v.  McMurry.  Preserving  green  corn.  Patent  declared 
void  for  want  of  novelty,  then  reissued.  Bad  either  be- 
cause still  void  for  want  of  novelty,  or  because  not  for  same 
invention.     2  Hughes,  527;  13  Off.  Gaz.  6. 

JoNKS  V.  Merrill.  Preserving  green  corn.  Preliminary  in- 
junctions. Prior  decisions.  Liberal  construction  of  patents. 
Negligence  of  plaintiffs  in  preventing  infringement  has  its 
weight  in  applications  for  injunctions.     8  Off.  Gaz.  401. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  67 

Jones  v.  Morehead.  Locks.  Want  of  novelty,  particular 
patent.     1  Wall.  155. 

Jones  v.  Noyes.  Preserving  green  corn.  Preliminary  injunc- 
tions. Prior  decisions.  Liberal  construction  of  patents. 
Negligence  of  plaintiffs  in  preventing  infringement  has  its 
weight  in  applications  for  injunctions.     8  Off.  Gaz.  401. 

Jones  v.  Osgood.  Zinc-white.  Patent  with  bad  specifica- 
tion. Defendant  a  director  of  corporation  and  without 
control  is  not  responsible  for  infringement.  Corporation 
sued  in  different  state,  qucere.     6  Blatch.  435;  3  Fisher,  .591. 

Jones  v.  Ostuander.  Preserving  green  corn.  Preliminary 
injunctions.  Prior  decisions.  Liberal  construction  of 
patents.  Negligence  of  plaintiffs  in  preventing  infringe- 
ment has  its  weight  in  applications  for  injunctions.  8  Off. 
Gaz.  401. 

Jones  i'.  Sewall.  Preserving  green  corn.  Patents  for  pro- 
cess and  for  product.  Patent  prima  facie  evidence  of 
original  inventor.  Want  of  novelty,  new  use.  Two  years' 
sale.  Prior  use  abroad  must  be  by  printed  publications- 
Abandonment,  unavoidable  delay.  Patent  sustained.  3 
Cliff.  563;  6  Fisher,  343;  3  Off.  Gaz.  630. 

Jones  v.  Vankirk.  Lamps.  Licensee's  stamping  goods  is  an 
acknowledgment  that  the  goods  so  made  are  subject  to  the 
agi-eement.     Infringement.     2  Fisher,  586. 

Jordan  v.  Dayton.  Medicine.  Practice  must  be  according 
to  State  law.     4  Ohio,  295. 

Jordan  v.  Dobson.  Wool  machinery.  Assignments  must  be 
in  writing.  Non-joinder  of  parties  plaintiff.  Reissue  not 
for  same  invention.  Fraud  must  be  proved.  Power  of 
Congress  to  renew  patent,  power  of  Commissioner  under 
special  act.  Beginning  of  extensions.  Want  of  novelty. 
Defen.se  in  answer.  Acquiescence  by  plaintiff  in  infringe- 
ment.    2  Abbott,  398;  7  Pliila.  (Penn.)  533;  4  FLsher,  232. 

Jordan  v.  Wallace.  Wool  machinery.  Infringement  should 
be  distinctly  and  unovasively  denied  in  answer.  Incapacity 
of  patentee  when  reissued.     5  Fisher,  185. 


68  PATENT     CASE     INDEX. 

JuDSON  V.  Cope.  Valves  for  governors.  Charge  to  jury. 
Uncertainty  in  specification.  Want  of  novelty.  Prior  use 
here.  Proof.  Infringement,  same  principle.  1  Bond, 
327;  1  Fisher,  615. 

JtJDSON  V.  Moore.  Valves  for  governors.  Charge  to  jury. 
Uncertainty  in  specification  for  the  court.  Want  of  novelty. 
Patent  ^n'ma /acie  evidence.  Notice  of  places  and  times. 
Utility.  Infringement,  damages.  1  Bond,  285;  1  Fisher, 
544. 

JuRGENSEX  V.  Magnix.  Stem-setting  watches.  Construction 
of  particular  patent.  Comjiarison  of  the  two  patents. 
9  Blatch.  294;  5  Fisher,  237. 


K. 

Kelleher  v.  Darlixg.     Mocassin  pac.     Special  notice  under 

general  issue.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Original 
inventor.  Experts'  ingenuity  does  not  make  a  good  patent. 
What  reissues  can  effect.  Printed  publication,  how 
pleaded  and  proved.  Models  do  not  anticipate.  Mere 
delay  is  not  abandonment.  Public  use  for  two  years  cannot 
be  set  up  under  general  issue.  Fatent  prima  facie  evidence. 
14  Off.  Gaz.  673. 

Kemptox  v.  Bray.  Boom-spring  traveller.  Assignment. 
Patent-rights  can  be  divided  only  according  to  United 
States  patent  law.  Territorial  assignee  cannot  stop  patentee 
or  others  from  working  under  the  patents  outside  of  assignee's 
territory.     99  Mass.  350. 

Kexdall  r.  WixsoR.  Weaver's  harness.  State  court  has 
no  power  to  enjoin  proceedings  in  United  States  courts. 
Patent  jurisdiction.     Parties  as  witnesses.     6  R.  I.  453. 

Kexdall  v.  Wixsor.  Weaver's  harness.  Object  of  patent 
laws.  General  issue  and  notice  of  defenses.  Admissibility 
of  evidence.  License  not  proved.  Dedication  a  right. 
Delay  while  perfecting  invention  is  not  abandonment.  An 
invention  pirated  and  used  does  not  deprive  inventor  of  his 
right.     Above  affirmed.     21  How.  322. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  69 

Kendrick  11.  Emmons.  Weavei-'s  harness.  Preliminary  in- 
junctions. Infringement.  1  Holmes,  234;  6  Fisher,  462; 
4  Off.  Gaz.  398. 

Kendrick  v.  Emmons.  Weaver's  harness.  English  patent 
taken  out  surreptitiously  will  not  defeat  the  inventor's 
right  here.     9  Off.  Gaz.  201. 

Kendrick  v.  Emmons.  Weaver's  harness.  Evidence  before 
a  master,  dividing  royalties.     15  Off.  Gaz.  966. 

Keplinger  v.  De  Young.  Watch-chain  machine.  Notice 
under  general  issue.  Contract,  interpretation  of.  Rights 
under  the  patent  law.     10  Wheat.  358;  1  Robb,  458. 

Kernodle  v.  Hunt.  Grist-mill.  Debt  on  note.  No  consid- 
eration. Pleading,  what  is  sufficient.  Void  patent.  4 
Blackf.  (Ind.)  57. 

Kerosene  Lamp  Heater  Co.  v.  Littell.  Lamps.  Re- 
issue can  claim  whatever  is  shown  in  original  drawings. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Aggregation  of  parts  not 
patentable.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  combination. 
13  Off.  Gaz.  1009. 

Ketchum  Harvesting  Machine  Co.  v.  Johnston  Har- 
vester Co.  Harvesters.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention. 
Want  of  novelty.  Particular  patent.  Infiingement.  '13 
Off.  Gaz.  178. 

Keystone  Bridge  Co.  v.  Phcenix  Iron  Co.  Iron  truss 
bridges.  Particular  patent.  Infringement,  patents  for 
use  not  infringed  by  makimi  and  selling.  5  Fisher,  468; 
1  Off.  Gaz.  471. 

Keystone  Bridge  Co.  v.  Phcenix  Iron  Co.  Iron  truss 
bridges.  Patents  must  be  construed  according  to  their 
language.  Defects  should  be  cured  by  reissue.  Above 
affirmed.     5  Otto,  274;  12  Off.  Gaz.  980. 

KiDD  V.  Spence.  Bonnet-frames.  Patents  must  be  construed 
according  to  the  claims.     4  Fisher,  37. 

King  v.  Hammond.  Bridges.  Interpretation  of  particular 
patent.  Want  of  novelty.  Simple  and  economical  things 
are  not  anticipated  by  complex  and  expensive  ones.  4 
Fisher,  488. 


70  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

King  v.  Louisville  Cement  Co.  Baling-presses.  Infringe- 
ment, combination,  well-known  equivalents.  6  Fisher, 
334;  4  Off.  Gaz.  181. 

King  v.  Maudelbaum.  Fluting-machine.  Interpretation  of 
particular  patent.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  com- 
parison of  the  two  machines.     8  Blatch.  468  ;  4  Fisher,  577. 

King  v.  Werner.  Fluting-machine.  Interpretation  of  par- 
ticular patent.  State  of  art.  Meaning  of  "  simultaneously." 
Infringement,  mode  of  operation,  mechanical  equivalent. 
12  Blatch.  270;  8  Off.  Gaz.  361. 

Kinsman  v.  Parkhurst.  Cotton-gin.  Agreement,  sales 
under  it  estop  defendant  from  disputing  validity  of  patent. 
Contract  in  restraint  of  trade.  Profits  and  damages.  18 
How.  289. 

KiRBY  V.  Beardsley.  Harvester.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention. Particular  patent.  Want  of  novelty,  change  of 
location.     Priority.     5  Blatch.  438;  3  Fisher,  265. 

KiRBY  V.  Dodge  and  Stevenson  Manufacturing  Co. 
Harvester.  Particuhxr  patent.  Want  of  novelty,  state  of 
art.  Original  inventor.  Reissues  not  for  same  invention. 
Decision  of  Supreme  Court,  entitled  to  deference,  how 
much.  Impracticability.  Infringement  not  considered 
when  patent  is  declared  void.  10  Blatch.  307;  6  Fisher, 
156;  3  Off.  Gaz.  181. 

Kittle  v.  Frost.  Spring  mattress.  Particular  patent.  Want 
of  novelty.  Contract  as  a  defense,  intei-pretation  of.  9 
Blatch.  214;  5  Fisher,  213. 

Kittle  v.  Merriam.  Door-fastenings.  Court  construes,  not 
corrects,  patents.  Drawings  may  correct  an  eiTor  in  the 
text.     2  Curtis,  475. 

Klein  w.  Park  &  Co.  Eyes  of  picks.  Want  of  novelty, 
last  step  being  new  makes  all  new.  Infringement,  formal 
change,  same  principle.     13  Off.  Gaz.  5. 

Klein  v.  Russell.  Treating  leather.  Reissue  not  for  samo 
invention.     Particular  patent.     Utility.     19  Wall.  333. 


LIST    OF     CASES.  71 

Kneass  I'.  Schuylkill  Bank.  Bank-note  printing.  Charge 
to  jury.  Books  of  science  to  aid  the  court.  Infringement 
is  for  jury.  Statutes  in  evidence  under  general  issue. 
Defects  in  specification.  Patentability.  Damages.  4 
Wash.  9;  1  Robb,  303. 

Kneass  v.  Schuylkill  Bank.  AVhen  costs  are  allowed,  none 
by  common  law.     4  Wash.  106. 

Knight  v.  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad.     Railway-cars. 

Charge  to  jury.      Patent  prima  facie  evidence  of  original 

inventor.     Reissues  are  for  defects   in  specification   only. 

Taney,  Dec.  106;  3  Fisher,  1. 
Knowles  v.  Peck.     India-rubber.     Violation  of  injunction  at 

request  of    patentee's   agent.       Conspiracy  charged.      42 

Conn.  386. 

Knox  v.  Great  Western  Quicksilver  Mining  Co.  What 
matter  not  redundant.  Reference  to  prior  suit.  3  Sawyer, 
422;  14  Off.  Gaz.  897. 

Knox  v.  Loweree.  Fluting-machine.  Date  of  invention, 
completed  and  in  private  use.  Delay  during  war  is  not 
abandonment.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  same 
means,  same  result.     6  Off.  Gaz.  802. 

Knox  v.  Murtha.  Smut-mill.  Infringement,  construction 
of  complainant's  patent.  AVant  of  novelty.  9  Blatch. 
205;  5  Fisher,  174. 

Kursheedt  v.  Werner.  Fluting-machine.  Particular  pat- 
ent. Prior  interpretations.  Infringement.  12  Blatch. 
530;  8  Off.  Gaz.  146. 

L. 

La  Baw  I'.  Hawkins.  Miter-machines.  Reissue  not  for 
same  invention.  Prior  use.  Infringement,  same  principle. 
6  Off.  Gaz.  724. 

Lake  v.  Fitzgerald.  Vault-covers.  Infringement,  particu- 
lar patent.     6  Fisher,  420. 

Lamp  Heater  Co.     (See  Kerosene  Lamp  Heater  Co.) 


72  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Lane  v.  Smith.  Looms.  Promissory  note,  to  recover  pro- 
ceeds.    Fraud.    Interpretation  of  contract.    68  Maine,  178. 

Langdon  v.  De  Groot.  Preparing  cotton.  What  utility  is. 
Defective  specifications.     1  Paine,  203.     1  Robb,  433. 

Larabee  v.  Cortlan.  Shower-baths.  Charge  to  jury.  Par- 
ticular patent.  Original  inventor.  Patent  prima  facie 
evidence.     Taney,  Dec.  180;  3  Fisher,  5. 

Latta  v.  Shavv^k.  Steam  generator.  Charge  to  jury.  Pat- 
ents for  combinations,  want  of  novelty  of  patents.  In- 
fringement, same  principle.     1  Bond,  259;  1  Fisher,  465. 

Leather  Splitting  Co.  (See  American  Hide  and  Leather 
Splitting  Co.) 

Lee  v.  Blandy.  Circular-saws.  Charge  to  jury.  Certified 
copies  of  assignments.  License  to  defendant  is  evidence  of 
utility.  Two  inventions  in  one  patent.  Two  kinds  of 
patentable  combinations.  Infringement,  same  principle. 
1  Bond,  361 ;  2  Fisher,  89. 

Leonard  v.  Barnum.  Thimble-skeins  for  wagons.  State 
jurisdiction  over  patents.  Sales  injurious  to  infants  made 
by  administrator  or  guardian,  set  aside.     34  Wis.  105. 

Leroy  v.  Tatham.  Tube-making.  What  "principle  "  means. 
Patentability  in  general.  Result  not  patentable.  Particu- 
lar patent.     14  How.  156. 

Leeoy  v.  Tatham.  Tube-making.  Particular  patent.  Clear- 
ness in  specification.  Difference  in  result  patentable  as 
showing  difference  in  process.     22  How.  132. 

Lester  v.  Palmer.  Loose  horse-car  wheel.  Note.  Void 
patent,  no  consideration.     4  Allen  (Mass.),  145. 

Liddle  v.  Cory.  Hot-air  furnace.  Contempt,  violation  of  in- 
junction. Article  not  sold  till  after  decree,  issue  not  prop- 
erly raised  on  motion  for  contempt.     7  Blatch.  1. 

Lightner  v.  Boston  and  Albany  Railroad.  Axle-boxes  for 
railways.  A  new  corporation  can  use  patented  cars  licensed 
to  the  coi'poration  which  it  supersedes.     1  Lowell,  338. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  73 

LiGHTNER  V.  Brooks.  Axle-boxes  for  railways.  Corporation 
not  responsible  for  infringement  by  a  contractor.  General 
responsibility  in  tort.  Contracts  by  chairman  of  corpora- 
tion.    2  Cliff.  287. 

LiGHTXER  V.  Kimball.  Axle-boxes  for  railways.  Responsi- 
bility of  agents  in  tort.  Agents  of  corporations  having 
nothing  to  do  with  use  of  patented  article  do  not  infringe. 
1  Lowell,  211, 

Lindsay  v.  Ror aback.  Chemical  soap.  Jurisdiction  in  pat- 
ents. Pleading,  allegation  of  fraud.  4  Jones,  Eq.  (X.  C.) 
124. 

LiPPiNCOTT  V.  Kelly,  Planing-raachine.  Disclaimer,  un- 
reasonable delay.     1  West.  L.  J.  513. 

Littlefield  v.  Perry,  Coal-burner.  Jurisdiction  where  both 
parties  are  citizens  of  same  State.  Assignments  and 
licenses.  Licensee  cannot  sue.  Agreement.  Equitable 
and  legal  titles.  Infringement,  damages  and  profits.  21 
Wall.  205;  7  Off.  Gaz.  964. 

Livingston  v.  Jones.  Door-locks,  Experts  and  professors  as 
witnesses.  Comparison  of  machines.  Original  inventor. 
Utility.     1  Fisher,  521. 

Livingston  v.  Jones.  Door-locks.  Master's  report.  Gains 
and  profits.  Rule  of  damages.  No  vindictive  injunctions. 
Validity  of  particular  patent.  3  WaU.  Jr.  330;  2  Fisher, 
207. 

Livingston  v.  Van  Ingen.  Patent  for  navigation  of  particular 
waters.  No  jurisdiction  of  United  States  court,  both 
parties  being  of  same  State.  Suit  at  law  not  in  equity. 
1  Paine,  45. 

Livingston  v.  Woodworth.  Planing-machine.  Objection  of 
misjoinder  is  too  late  after  decree.  Decree,  if  granted,  must 
be  in  accordance  with  prayer  of  the  bill.     15  How.  546. 

Lock  Co.     (See  Norwalk  Lock  Co.) 

Lockwood  v.  Lockwood.  Sled-runners.  Livention  by  em- 
ploye. Immaterial  affidavits.  Jurisdiction  of  State  courts. 
33  Iowa,  198, 


74  PATENT     CASE    INDEX. 

Locomotive  Engine  Safety  Truck  Co.  v.  Erie  Railroad, 

Rail  way- trucks.  Particular  patent.  Want  of  novelty. 
Title  of  patent  is  not  conclusive.  10  Blatch.  292;  6  Fisher, 
187;  3  Off.  Gaz.  93. 

Locomotive  Engine  Safety  Truck  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 
Railroad.  Railway-trucks.  Particular  patent.  Want  of 
novelty.  Title  of  patent  is  not  conclusive.  Abandonment, 
public  use.    Patentability  of  combination.    6  Off.  Gaz.  927. 

Loom  Co.     (See  Webster  Loom  Co.) 

LoRiLLARD  &  Co.  V.  McDowELL.  Labelled  tobacco.  Want 
of  novelty.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention,  inadvertence. 
34  Leg.  Lit.  78;  24  Pitts.  L.  J.  119;  11  Off.  Gaz.  640. 

Loudon  v.  Birt.  Door-plates.  Xote  assigned.  Pleading, 
fraud.  Record  of  assignments.  Defenses  under  general 
issue.     What  payment  is  made  in.  *  4  Ind.  566. 

Lowell  v.  Lewis.  Pumps.  Charge  to  jury.  Patent  prima 
facie  evidence  of  novelty  and  utility.  What  "useful" 
means.  Clearness  in  specification.  Infringement,  change 
of  form.     1  Mason,  182;  1  Robb,  131. 

Lowell  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Hartford  Carpet  Co. 
Power-looms.  Interpretation  of  agreement,  extension.  2 
Fisher,  472. 

Lyman  Ventilating  and  Refrigerator  Co.  v.  Chamber- 
lain. Method  of  cooling  rooms.  Prior  construction  of 
patent  adopted.     No  infringement.     10  Off.  Gaz.  588. 

Lyman  Ventilating  and  Refrigerator  Co.  v.  Lalor. 
Method  of  cooling  rooms.  Particular  patent.  Want  of 
novelty.  Infringement,  same  principle.  12  Blatch.  303; 
6  Off.  Gaz.  642. 

M. 

Mabie  v.  Haskell.  Shoe-last.  Clearness  in  specification. 
State  of  art.  Object  of  the  lav?.  Construction  of  patents 
by  the  court.  Original  inventor.  Infringement,  special 
denial.     2  Cliff.  507. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  75 

Magic  Rufflk  Co.  v.  Douglass.  Ruffles,  sewing-machine. 
Charge  to  jury.  Validity  for  jury.  Particular  patent. 
Patent  prima  facie  evidence  of  oiiginal  inventor.  Utility. 
Defective  specification.     Damages.     2  Fisher,  330. 

Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Elm  City  Co.  Ruffles.  Contract, 
estoppel  to  dispute  validity.  Infringement,  choice  of  rem- 
edies. Want  of  novelty.  Damages  in  equity.  13  Blatch. 
151;  8  Off.  Gaz.  773. 

Magic  Rufflf,  Co.  v.  Elm  City  Co.  Ruffles.  Jurisdiction  of 
bills  for  discovery.  Master's  report.  Damages.  Interlocu- 
tory orders  subject  to  revision.  Forfeiture  by  laches.  14 
Blatch.  109;  11  Off.  Gaz.  501. 

Mahn  v.  Harwood.  Base-ball  covering.  Want  of  novelty. 
State  of  art.      14  Off.  Gaz.  859. 

Mallory  I'.  Rahmer.  Men's  hats.  Infringement.  8  Blatch. 
556  ;  4  Fisher,  632. 

Mallory  v.  White.  Men's  hats.  Infringement,  same  means, 
same  purpose.  Want  of  novelty.  8  Blatch.  552;  4  Fisher, 
628. 

Maltby  v.  Bobo.  Nail-pullers.  Salesman  is  liable  for  selling, 
though  without  interest.     14  Blatch.  53. 

Mann  v.  Bay'Liss.  Harvesters.  Xo  infringement,  essentially 
different.     10  Off.  Gaz.  113;  s.  c.  10  Off.  Gaz.  789.' 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Bussing.  (See  Gilbert  and  Barker 
Manufacturing  Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Clark.  (See  Gong  Bell  Manufac- 
turing Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Corbin.  (See  Hopkins,  &c.  Manu- 
facturing Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Corning.  (See  Gould's  Manufac- 
turing Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Diatite  Co.  (See  Florence  Manu- 
facturing Co.) 

1  More  extended  report.     Liberal  construction  of  patents. 


76  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Du  Brul.  (See  Miller  Manufac- 
turing Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Fiske.  (See  Boston  Manufactur- 
ing Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Hartford  Co.  (See  Lowell  Man- 
ufacturing Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Hayden.  (See  Suffolk  Manufac- 
turing Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Lane.  (See  American  Manufac- 
turing Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Lounsbury.  (See  Union  Manu- 
facturing Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Mallory.  (See  Russell  and  Erwin 
Manufacturing  Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Parker  and  Whipple  Manufactur- 
ing Co.     (See  Hopkins,  &c.  Manufacturing  Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Prime.  (See  Brandon  Manufac- 
turing Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Tirrell.  (See  Gilbert  and  Barker 
Manufacturing  Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Walworth  Manufacturing  Co. 
(See  Gilbert  and  Barker  Manufacturing  Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  White.  (See  Gorham  Manufac- 
turing Co.) 

Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Woodruff.  (See  Sargent  Manu- 
facturing Co.) 

Manvel  v.  Holdredge.     Contract  to  reassign.     45  N.  Y.  151. 

Many  v.  Jagger.  Car-wheels.  Charge  to  jury.  Assignment, 
admissibility  of  evidence.  Particular  patent.  Improve- 
ment need  not  describe  machine  improved  on.  Want  of 
novelty,  abandoned  experiments.  Test  of  identity.  Utility. 
1  Blatch.  372. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  77 

Many  v.  Sizer.  Car-wheels.  Charge  to  jury.  Patent /»nwia 
facie  evidence.  Priority.  Abandoned  experiments.  Orig- 
inal inventor.  Utility.  Infringement,  greater  utility. 
Expert  testimony.     Damages.     1  Fisher,  17. 

Maxy  v.  Sizer.  Car-wheels.  Preliminary  injunctions.  Ver- 
dict at  law.  Constructions  of  patents.  Decisions  of  other 
federal  judges.     1  Fisher,  31. 

Marsh  v.  Commissioner  of  Patents.  Cultivators.  Reject- 
ing patents.  Abandonment,  non-action  for  eighteen  years, 
original  reason  immaterial.     3  Bissell,  321. 

Marsh  v.  Dodge.  Rakes.  Royalty.  Evidence,  admissibility 
of.     Pi-ofits.     4  Hun  (N.  Y.),  278;  6  Th.  &C.  (X.  Y.)  568. 

Marsh  r.  Dodge  and  Stevenson  Manufacturing  Co.  Reap- 
ers. Result  not  patentable.  Change  of  location  not  patent- 
able, what  is  necessary  in  addition.  6  Fisher,  502;  5  Off. 
Gaz.  398. 

Marsh  v.  Sayles.  Cultivators.  Abandonment,  too  long  de- 
lay, and  invention  by  another.  5  Fisher,  610;  2  Off.  Gaz. 
398. 

Marsh  v.  Seymour.  Cultivators.  Reissues  in  general.  Too 
bioad  assignments  of  error.  "Wliat  is  invention.  Reissue 
not  for  same  invention.  Want  of  novelty.  Several  reasons 
for  invalidity.  Damages.  Infringement,  comparison  of 
the  machines  is  best  test.     7  Otto,  318;  13  Off.  Gaz.  723. 

Marston  i'.  SwETT.  Stoves.  Owners  in  common.  Parol 
agreement.  Statute  of  Frauds.  Invalidity  as  a  defense. 
Counter-claims.  4  Ilun  (N.  Y.),  153;  6  Th.  &  C.  (X.  Y.) 
534. 

Mason  v.  Graham.  Looms.  Particular  patent.  Want  of 
novelty.  Profits.  Decree  reversed.  23  Wall.  2G1 ;  7  Off. 
Gaz.  833. 

Mason  r.  Rowley.  Jurisdiction  of  court  of  District  of  Co- 
lumbia.  Mandamus  to  Commissioner  of  Patents.  3  A.  L. 
T.  (U.  S.)  R.  8. 

Masury  v.  Andei!S0n.  Paint-cans.  Want  of  novelty,  particu- 
lar patent.     11  Blatch.  102;  G  Fisher,  457;  4  Off!  Gaz.  55. 


78  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Masury  v.  Tiemaxn.  Paint-cans.  Infringement,  circular  as 
evidence.     Want  of  novelty.     8  Blatch.  426;  4  Fisher,  524. 

Matthkws  v.  Skates.  Metallic  packing.  Charge  to  jury. 
Date  of  invention.  Infringement,  intent,  equivalents. 
Want  of  novelty.  Patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Original 
inventor,  suggestions.     1  Fisher,  602. 

May  v.  Chaffee.  Stave-machine.  Territorial  grants,  what 
rights  are  conveyed.     2  Dillon,  385;  5  Fisher,  160. 

McBuRNEY  V.  Goodyear.  India-rubber.  Contract,  unreason- 
able delay  to  elect.  Reissues  are  not  new  patents.  Con- 
tract before  applies  after  reissue.    11  Gushing  (Mass.),  569. 

McCay  v.  Burr.  Bridges.  Deficiency  of  notice  of  special 
matter  camaot  be  supplied  by  special  plea.  License.  Aban- 
donment.    6  Penn.  St.  117. 

McClure  17.  Jeffrey.  Force-pumps.  Note,  consideration, 
implied  warranty.     8  Ind.  79. 

McCi.uRG  V.  Kixgsland.  Chilled  rollers.  Invention  by  em- 
ploye. Purchase  by  corporation  before  patent  issues  is  pro- 
tected.  Interpretation  of  statute.    1  How.  202;  2  Robb,  105. 

McCoMB  V.  Beard.  Metallic  bale-ties.  Particular  patent. 
Infringement,  same  result,  same  means.  10  Blatch.  350; 
6  Fisher,  254;  3  Off.  Gaz.  33. 

McCoMB  r.  Brodie.  Metallic  bale-ties.  Charge  to  jury.  Par- 
ticular patent.  Tliirty  days'  notice  of  defense.  Patent 
prima  facie  evidence  of  novelty.  Patentability.  Infiinge- 
ment,  damages.  Patented  articles  must  be  marked  so. 
1  Woods,  15:5;  5  Fisher,  381;  2  Off.  Gaz.  117. 

McCoMB  V.  Ernest.  Metallic  bale-ties.  Patentee  may  sue 
for  any  one  device  covered  by  his  patent.  What  "  utility  " 
is.  Want  of  novelty.  Extensions  strengthen  presumption 
of  patent's  validity.  Patentability  of  changes  which  pro- 
duce new  results.  What  "undisturbed  possession "  is. 
When  injunctions  will  issue  against  defendants  holding  a 
patent.     1  Woods,  195. 

McCoRMiCK  r.  Manny.  Reaper.  Particular  patent.  In- 
fringement, combination.  A  part  not  new  can  only  be 
claimed  in  combination.  Want  of  novelty.  Patents  for 
improvements.     Public  use,  equivalents.     0  McLean,  539. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  79 

McCoRMiCK  r.  Seymour.  Reaper.  Charge  to  jury.  Want 
of  novelty.  Original  inventor.  Patentability.  Infringe- 
ment, ideas  of  plaintiff.  Abandonment,  sale  by  inventor 
within  two  years  not  conclusive.  Damages,  actual  dam- 
ages and  profits  he  would  have  made.  Reversed.  2  Blatch. 
240. 

McCoRMicK  r.  Seymour.  Reaper.  Charge  to  jury.  Peculiar 
disadvantages.  AVhat  novelty  is.  Patentability  of  improve- 
ments. Abandoned  experiments.  Infringement,  appro- 
priation of  plaintiff's  ideas.     Damages.     3  Blatch.  209. 

McCoRMicK  V.  Talcott.  Reaper.  Patents  for  combinations, 
only  infringed  by  same  combination.  Patentee  for  im- 
provements not  entitled  to  equivalents.     20  How.  402. 

McCuLLY  V.  Cunninghams.  Fruit-jar.  Want  of  novelty, 
utility.     19  Pitts.  L.  J.  142. 

McDonald  v.  Blackmer.  Skirt-protector.  Patent  sustained. 
9  Off.  Gaz.  746. 

McDouGALL  V.  Fogg.  Gas  machinery.  Contract,  plaintiff 
must  show  performance  on  his  side.  Patent  only  prima  facie 
valid.     Exclusion  of  evidence.     2  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  387. 

McDowell  v.  Meredith.  Corn-sheller.  Notice  of  evidence, 
sufficient.  Deed,  patent,  no  title.  4  Whart.  (Penn.) 
311. 

McGaw  v.  Bryan.  Staining  India  silks.  Want  of  novelty. 
Application  to  repeal  patent.     1  U.  S.  L.  J.  582. 

McKay  i\  Wooster.  Egg-transporter.  Article  sold  passes 
out  of  monopoly.  What  rights  territorial  assignees  have. 
Assignments  without  restriction.  2  Sawyer,  373;  G  Fisher, 
375;  3  Off.  Gaz.  441. 

McKernan  v.  IIite.  Note.  Assignment,  recording,  valid  with- 
out.    6  Ind.  428. 

McMahon  v.  Tyng.  Car-wheels.  Rulings  before  defendant's 
case  is  put  in.  Adverse  report  of  examiner  on  exten.sion 
not  competent  to  show  want  of  novelty.  14  Allen  (Mass.), 
1C7. 


80  PATENT     CASE    INDEX. 

McMiLLiN  V.  Barclay.  Capstans.  Equity  jurisdiction  over 
patents,  prior  suit  at  law  not  a  prerequisite.  Patent 
prima  facie  evidence  of  original  inventor.  Public  use. 
Abandonment,  want  of  novelty.     5  Fisher,  189. 

Meissner  v.  Devoe  Manufacturing  Co.  Stop-valves  for 
casks.  Patentee  has  to  stand  or  fall  by  his  claims.  Par- 
ticular patent,  same  form.  9  Blatch.  363;  5  Fisher,  285; 
2  OfE.  Gaz.  545. 

Mellus  v.  Silsbee.  Plank-protector.  Dedication.  On  sale, 
consent  of  patentee.     4  Mason,  108;  1  Robb,  506. 

Merchant  v.  Lewis.  Water-wheel.  Construction  of  sect.  14 
of  Patent  Act  of  1836.  Damages  in  discretion  of  the  court. 
1  Bond,  172. 

Merriam  v.  Drake.  Whip-sockets.  Particular  patent.  State 
of  art.  Patentability.  No  infringement.  9  Blatch.  336; 
5  Fisher,  259. 

Merriam  v.  Van  Nest.  Whip-sockets.  Infringement,  dif- 
ferent methods.     13  Off.  Ga^.  597. 

Merrill,  Rufus  S.  Lamps.  Appeals  from  Commissioner, 
Two  inventions  are  the  same  if  so  in  fact,  though  different 
in  effect.     5  Off.  Gaz.  120. 

Merrill  v.  Yeomans.  Hydrocarbon  oils.  Particular  patent. 
State  of  art.  Claims  for  art  and  manufacture.  Infringe- 
ment, different  process.     1  Holmes,  331 ;  5  Off.  Gaz.  267. 

Merrill  v.  Yeomans.  Hydrocarbon  oils.  Process  not  in- 
fringed by  sale  of  product.  Claims  must  be  regarded 
distinct  from  specification.  Invention  generally.  New 
combinations.  Rights  of  inventors.  Clearness  in  specifi- 
cation.    Above  affirmed.     4  Otto,  568;  11  Off.  Gaz.  970. 

Mers  iJ.  CoNOVER.  Wood-splitting  machine.  What  "  profits  " 
are.     Decree  affirmed.     11  Off.  Gaz.  1111. 

Merserole  v.  Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  Paper  collars. 
Jurisdiction,  citizenship,  invalidity  of  patents.  Suits  to 
vacate  patents.     6  Blatch.  356 ;  3  Fisher,  483. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  81 

Metallic  Cartridge  Co.  (See  Union  Metallic  Car- 
tridge Co.) 

Metropolitan  Washing  Machine  Co.  v.  Earle.  India- 
rubber.  Agreements.  Patentee  cannot  control  use  of 
thing  sold.  Public  will  not  recognize  his  agreement  with 
licensees  destroying  competition.  3  Wall.  Jr.  320 ;  2 
Fisher,  203. 

Metropolitan  Washing  Machine  Co.  v.  Providence 
Tool  Co.  Clothes-wringers.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention, apparent  on  its  face  or  not.  State  of  the  art. 
i  Holmes,  161. 

Metropolitan  Washing  Machine  Co.  v.  Providence 
Tool  Co.  Clothes-wringer.  Particular  patent.  Above 
affirmed.     20  WaU.  342. 

Metropolitan  Wringing  IMachine  Co.  v.  Young.  Clothes- 
wringers.  Particular  patent.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention.    Infringement.     14  Blatch.  46. 

Meyer  v.  Bailey.  Hydrants.  "  Assignees  "  and  "  grantees." 
Assignees  must  join  in  surrender  and  reissue.  8  Off.  Gaz. 
437. 

Meyer  i'.  Pritchard.  Rubber  overshoes.  Particular  patent. 
Want  of  novelty.  New  application  of  old  device  not  patent- 
able.    12  Blatch.  101 ;  7  Off.  Gaz.  1012. 

Michigan  Southern  and  Northern  Indiana  Railroad  v. 
TuRRiLL.     (See  Cawood  Patent.) 

MiDDLEBROOK  V.  Broadbent.  Paper-making.  Contract, 
State  court  has  jurisdiction  even  if  validity  of  patent  is  in- 
volved.    47  N.  Y.  443. 

Middletown  Tool  Co.  v.  Judd.  Self-mousing  hook.  Title 
of  complainants  to  reissue  prima  facie.  Reissue  not  for 
same  invention.  Patent  prima  facie  valid.  Want  of 
novelty.  Original  inventor.  Colorable  changes.  Amount 
of  invention  required.     3  Fisher,  141. 

Middlings  Purifying  Co.  (See  American  Middlings 
Purifier  Co.) 


82  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

MiDKiFF  V.  BoGGESS.  Steel  spring.  N^ote,  void  patent,  no 
consideration.     15  Ind.  210. 

Miller  v.  Androscoggin  Pulp  Co.  Wood  pulp.  Prelim- 
inary injunctions.  State  of  the  art.  Particular  patent. 
Undisputed  possession.  1  Holmes,  142;  5  Fisher,  340;  1 
Off.  Gaz.  409. 

Miller  &  Co.  v.  Bridgeport  Brass  Co.  "Lamps.  Par- 
ticular patent.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Combina- 
tion changed.     14  Blatch.  282;  12  Off.  Gaz.  667. 

Miller   and   Peters    Manufacturing   Co.    v.    Du   Brul. 

Cigar-moulds.  Power  of  Commissioner  to  reissue.  Reissue 
not  for  same  invention.  Degree  of  novelty  required.  12 
Off.  Gaz.  351. 

Miller's  Falls  Co.  v.  Ives  &  Co.  Bit-stocks.  Particular 
patent.  Want  of  novelty.  Equivalents.  14  Blatch.  169; 
14  Off.  Gaz.  203. 

MiLLiGAN  AND  HiGGiNS  Glue  Co.  V.  IJpTON.  GluB.  Reissue 
not  for  same  invention.  Power  of  Commissioner  to  reissue. 
Fraud  not  open.  Want  of  novelty.  Particular  patent. 
Patentability,  greater  convenience.     6  Off.  Gaz.  837. 

MiLLiGAN  AND  HiGGiNS  Glue  Co.  V.  IJpTON.  Glue.  Want 
of  novelty,  mere  change  of  form.     7  Otto,  3. 

Mini's  Assignee  v.  Adams.     (See  Child  v.  Adams.) 

Mitchell  v.  Hawley.  Felting  hats.  Articles  sold  pass  out 
of  monopoly  of  patent.  Distinction  between  right  to  make 
and  vend  and  right  to  use.  Patentee's  rights  against  pur- 
chasers.    Decree  affirmed.     16  Wall.  544;  3  Off.  Gaz.  241. 

Mitchell  v.  Tilghman.  Fats.  Exclusive  jurisdiction  is  in 
circuit  courts.  Particular  patent.  Originality.  Practical- 
ness.    Infringement,  same  process.     19  Wall.  287. 

Moffitt  v.  Gaar.  Threshing-machine.  Patent-rights  the 
creature  of  statute.  Surrendered  patents.  Infringement 
before  reissue.     1  Bond,  315;  1  Fisher,  610. 

Moffitt  v.  Gaar.  Threshing-machine.  Surrendered  patent 
stops  suits,  and  they  cannot  be  revived.  Above  affirmed. 
1  Black,  273. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  83 

MoNCE  V.  Adams.  Glass-cutter.  Particular  patent.  Utility 
and  economy.  Want  of  novelty.  State  of  art.  Ambi- 
guity in  patents.     12  Blatch.  1;  7  Off.  Gaz.  177. 

Montague  v.  Boston  and  Faikhaven  Iron  Works.  Print- 
ing-press. Foreclosure  and  redemption  of  mortgage. 
Equity  jurisdiction  of  State  court.     108  Mass.  248. 

Moody  v.  Fiske.  Cotton-speeder.  Patent  claiming  several 
improvements  is  avoided  by  showing  that  one  was  not 
original.  Infringement  generally.  Combinations.  2  Mason, 
112;  1  Robb,  312. 

Moody  v.  Taber.  Corsets.  Particular  patent.  Want  of 
novelty,  weak  evidence.     1  Holmes,  325;  5  Off.  Gaz.  273. 

Moore  v.  Bare.  Lath-machine.  Contract,  assignment. 
Title  to  convey.  Defendant's  title,  defective.  11  Iowa, 
198. 

Moore  v.  Marsh.  Grain-drills.  Interest  required  for  suit  at 
law  on  patents.  Inventor  who  has  parted  with  patent  can 
sue  for  infringements  while  he  owned  it.     7  Wall.  515. 

Moore  v.  Thomas.  Grain-drills.  Particular  patent.  In- 
fringement.    14  Off.  Gaz.  1. 

Morehead  v.  Jones.  Door-locks.  Amendment  to  answer, 
striking  out  admission  of  use  of  articles,  no  laches.  3  Wall. 
Jr.  306. 

Morey  I".  LocKwooD.  Syringe.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention.    Want  of  novelty.     8  Wall.  230. 

Morris  v.  Barrett.  Wood-bending  machine.  Charge  to 
jury.  Experts  as  witnesses.  Infringement.  1  Bond,  254; 
1  Fisher,  461. 

Morris  ».  Huntington.  Stop-cock.  Charge  to  jury.  "Use" 
means  by  others  than  patentee.  Prior  patent  not  surren- 
dered or  repealed  avoids  present  patent.  "  Vacatur." 
Estoppel  of  patentee  to  dispute  his  own  patent.  1  Paine, 
348;  1  Robb,  448. 

Morris  v.  Lowell  Manufacturing  Co.  Cotton-gin.  Pre- 
liminary injunctions,  circumstances  of  the  parties,  ir- 
reparable mischief,  responsibility  of  defendant.  3  Fisher, 
67. 


84  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Morris  v.  Royer.  Wood-bending  machine.  Reissue  not  for 
same  invention,  strong  legal  presumption  the  other  way. 
"Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  comparison  of  the  two 
machines.     2  Bond,  66 ;  3  Fisher,  176. 

Morris  v.  Shelburne.  Dredging-machine.  Preliminary  in- 
junctions, no  prior  decisions,  single  machine,  security  for 
costs.     8  Blatch.  266;  4  Fisher,  377. 

Morse  v.  Bain.  Telegraph.  Date  of  foreign  patents.  More 
than  one  reissue.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  9 
West.  L.  J.  106. 

Morse  v.  Davis.  Harvesters.  General  issue,  special  pleas. 
Hypothetical  pleas  are  bad.  Sales  by  agent.  5  Blatch. 
40. 

Morse  v.  Oreilly.  Telegraph.  Equity  never  enforces  for- 
feiture. Contract.  Injunction  against  waste.  6  Penn. 
L.  J.  501. 

Morse  Fountain  Pen  Co.  v.  Esterbrook  Steel  Pen 
Manufacturing  Co.  Fountain  pens.  Preliminary  in- 
junctions. Verbal  admission  of  infringement.  Infringe- 
ment clear.     3  Fisher,  515. 

Morse  Twist  Drill  and  Machine  Co.  v.  Morse.  Twist- 
drills.  Contracts  in  restraint  of  trade.  Agreement  to  con- 
vey future  inventions.     103  Mass.  73. 

Morton  v.  New  York  Eye  Infirmary.  Surgical  opera- 
tions. Patent-rights  are  creature  of  statute.  Particular 
patent.     Want  of  novelty.     5  Blatch.  116;  2  Fisher,  320. 

MoTTE  V.  Bennett.  Planing-machine.  Seventh  amendment. 
Suits  for  infringement  by  jury.  Treble  damages  by  sect.  14 
of  act  of  1836.  Suit  at  law  not  a  prerequisite.  Trials  by 
juiy.  Practice  in  England  and  here.  Infringement  is  a 
question  for  the  jury.     2  Fisher,  642. 

MowRY  V.  Grand  Street  and  Newtown  Railroad.  Horse- 
car  brakes.  Construction  of  assignment,  effect  on  ex- 
tension. Title  of  plaintiffs.  10  Blatch.  89;  5  Fisher, 
586. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  85 

MowRY  V.  Whitney.  Car-wheels.  State  of  art.  Particular 
patent.  Want  of  novelty.  Utility.  Infringement,  same 
process.  Accounts,  profits.  Decree  reversed.  14  Wall. 
620;  5  Fisher,  494;  1  Off.  Gaz.  492. 

MovvKY  V.  Whitney.  Car-wheels.  Scire  facias.  Govern- 
ment alone  can  vacate  patents.  14  Wall.  434;  5  Fisher, 
513;  1  Off.  Gaz.  499. 

MuLFORD  V.  Pearce.  Chains  for  necklaces.  Particular 
patent,  want  of  novelty.     13  Blatcli.  173;  9  Off.  Gaz.  204. 

MuLFORD  V.  Pearce.  Chains  for  necklaces.  Master's  report. 
Damages,  profits  by  use  of  patented  over  unpatented  arti- 
cles.    14  Blatch.  141;  11  Off.  Gaz.  741. 

Mulliken  v.  Latchem.  Renovating  feathers.  Note,  assign- 
ment not  recorded,  so  no  title  in  seller.  7  Blackf .  (Ind.) 
130. 

MuNDE  V.  Lambie.  Folding-tables.  Assignment,  admissibil- 
ity of  evidence.     122  Mass.  336. 

MuNROE  V.  Dover  Stamping  Co.  Egg-beater.  Particular 
patent.     Infringement.     1  Holmes,  413;  6  Off.  Gaz.  685. 

Murphy  v.  Eastham.  Brush-head.  Original  inventor. 
Abandoned  experiments.  Infringement,  change  of  form. 
1  Holmes,  113;  5  Fisher,  306;  2  Off.  Gaz.  61. 

Murphy  v.  Kissling.  Brush-head.  Infringement,  change  of 
form.     1  Holmes,  432;  7  Off.  Gaz.  302. 

MuscAN  Hair  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  American  Hair 
Manufacturing  Co.  Treating  moss.  Preliminary  in- 
junctions, short  time  since  issue  of  patent,  exclusive  pos- 
session, slight  proof  of  infringement.  4  Blatch.  174  ;  I 
Fisher,  320. 

Myers  v.  Dunbar.  Sawing-machine.  Particular  patent. 
Disclaimers.  When  costs  are  not  allowed.  Original  in- 
ventor. Infringement,  mechanical  change.  8  Blatch.  446; 
4  Fisher,  493. 

Myers  v.  Dunbar.  Attachment  for  payment  of  Master's  fees. 
8  Off.  Gaz.  321. 


86  PATENT     CASE     INDEX. 

Myers  v.  Frame.  Sawing-machine.  Particular  patent. 
Disclaimers.  When  costs  are  not  allowed.  Original  in- 
ventor. Infringement,  mechanical  change.  8  Blatch.  446 : 
4  Fisher,  493. 

Myers  v.  Swift.     Sawing-machine.     Particular  patent.     Dis- 
'  claimers.     When  costs  are  not  allowed.     Original  inventor. 
Infringement,  mechanical  change.    8  Blatch.  446 ;  4  Fisher, 
493. 

N. 

Nail  Factory.     (See  Troy  Iron  and  Nail  Factory.) 

National  Car  Spring  Co.  v.  Union  Car  Spring  Co. 
Rubber  springs.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Reissues 
by  statute.  Want  of  novelty,  abandoned  experiments.  12 
Blatch.  80;  6  Off.  Gaz.  224. 

National  Filtering  Oil  Co.  v.  Arctic  Oil  Co.  Purify- 
ing oil.  Original  inventor,  want  of  novelty.  Printed 
publications.     4  Fisher,  514. 

National  Hay  Rake  Co.  v.  Harbert.  Bill  not  sworn  to 
praying  injunction  and  discovery  under  oath,  held  suffi- 
cient on  demurrer.  Domicile  of  corporation  not  necessarily 
stated.     2  Weekly  Notes,  100. 

Needham  v.  Washburn.  Car-wheels.  Patentability  in 
general.  Original  inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence. 
Defendants  sued  as  copartners  turn  out  to  be  corporation, 
may  be  cured  by  amendment.  Want  of  novelty,  partic- 
ular patent.     7  Off.  Gaz.  649. 

Nellis  v.  McLanahan.  Hay-elevators.  Multifariousness, 
several  patents,  must  allege  that  all  are  infringed  by  same 
machine.     6  Fisher,  286. 

Nesmith  v.  Calvert.  Cotton-cleaner.  Jurisdiction  under 
United  States  laws.  Contract,  specific  performance  and 
account.  When  objection  of  citizenship  should  be  taken. 
Interpretation  of  contract.     1  W.  &  M.  34;  2  Robb.  311. 

Nevins  v.  Johnson.  Dough-machine.  Equity  jurisdiction 
of  circuit  courts  in  patents.  Expired  patents.  3  Blatch. 
80. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  87 

Newbury  v.  Bay  State  Scuew  Co.  Agreement  to  assign 
annulled,  no  action  lies.     7  Allen,  257. 

Newell  v.  Gatling.  Wheat-drill.  Rescission  of  contract, 
false  representations.     7  Iiid.  147. 

Newell  v.  West.  Recording  assignments.  Right  of  execu- 
trix. 13  Blatch.  114;  8  Off.  Gaz.  598;  s.  c.  9  Off.  Gaz. 
1110. 

New  York.     (See  City  of  New  York.) 

New  Y'ork  Rubber  Co.  v.  Chaskel.  Elastic  toy.  In- 
fringement, particular  patent.     9  Off.  Gaz.  923. 

New  York  Wire  Rail  Co.  v.  Walker.  Wire  fences.  Con- 
tempt, violation  of  injunction.     2  Fisher,  179. 

Nichols  v.  Newell.  Lamps.  Word  "  patent  "  put  on  un- 
patented articles.     Penalty.     1  Fisher,  647. 

Nichols    r.    Pearce.        Hat-pouncing.        Original   inventor. 

Proper  parties  defendant.     7  Blatch.  5. 
Nickel  Co.     (See  United  Nickel  Co.) 

NicoLSON  Pavement  Co.  (See  American  Nicolson  Pave- 
ment Co.) 

North  v.  Kershaw.  Harness-saddles.  Preliminary  injunc- 
tions, no  prior  decisions,  right  and  infringement  must  be 
clear.     4  Blatch.  70. 

Northwestern  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.  v.  Philadelphia 
Fire  Extinguisher  Co.  Extinguishing  fires.  Mis- 
nomer of  one  inventor  in  a  patent.  Administrator's  ap- 
pointment not  open  collaterally.  Patents  to  administrators. 
Want  of  novelty,  printed  publications.  Rejected  patent 
as  evidence.  Practicability,  abandoned  experiments.  6 
Off.  Gaz.  34. 

NoRWALK  Lock  Co.  v.  Berger.  Locks.  Decree.  13  Off. 
Gaz.  47. 

NouRSE  V.  Allen.  Reaper.  Multifariousness,  several  patents, 
connected  use.     4  Blatch.  376 ;  3  Fisher,  63. 

NusBAUM  V.  Emery.  Distilling-raeters.  Patented  articles  pre- 
scribed by  government.  Money  deposited  for  them  is  not 
recoverable.     Distiller  estopped.     3  Bissell,  469. 


88  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

Nye  v.  Raymond.  Saw-mill.  Bond,  invalidity  of  patent  as  a 
defense.     16  111.  153. 

0. 

Odiorne  v.  Amesbury  Nail  Factory.  Nail-machines.  Two 
patents  for  same  invention  at  same  time  not  allowed.  2 
Mason,  28;  1  Robb,  300. 

Odiorne  v.  Denney.  Umbrella-cases.  Infringement,  color- 
able alterations.     13  Off.  Gaz.  965. 

Odiorne  v.  Winkley.  Nail-machines.  Testing  credibility  of 
witness.  Infringement,  colorable  alterations.  Who  is  en- 
titled to  a  patent.  Surreptitious  patents.  2  Gall.  51;  1 
Robb,  52. 

Ogle  v.  Ege.  Plow.  Assignee  cannot  sue  in  equity.  Rules  for 
gi-anting  injunctions.     4  Wash.  584;  1  Robb,  516. 

Oil  Co.      (See  National  Filtering  Oil  Co.) 

Olcott  v.  Hawkins.  Planing-machine.  Infringement,  par- 
ticular patent.     2  Am.  L.  J.  (9  Penn.  L.  J.)  317. 

Oliver,  Finnie,  &  Co.  v.  Morgan.  Yeast.  Interpretation  of 
agreement,  consideration.  Rights  of  administratrix  versus 
assignee.     Damages.     10  Ileisk.  (Tenn.)  322. 

Ore  Co.     (See  Gold  and  Silver  Ore  Co.) 

Oreilly  v.  Morse.  Telegraph.  Original  inventor,  particu- 
lar patent.  Information  obtained  from  scientific  men.  15 
How.  62. 

Ormsbee  v.  Wood.  Camera,  plate-holder.  Particular  patent. 
3  Fisher,  372. 

Orr  v.  Badger.  Air-tight  stoves.  Dissolving  injunctions, 
long  possession  by  plaintiff,  discretion  of  the  court,  vier- 
dict  at  law.     7  Law  Rep.  465. 

Orr  v.  Burwell.  Saw.  Interpretation  of  contract.  15  Ala. 
378. 

Orr  v.  Littlefield.  Stoves.  Injunctions,  undisturbed  pos- 
session, sleeping  on  his  rights,  injury  to  defendants.  1 
W.  &M.  13;  2  Robb,  323. 


LIST    OP    CASES. 


89 


Orr  v.  Merrill.  Stoves.  Dissolution  of  injunctions.  Trials 
at  law.     Proper  answers.     1  W.  &  M.  376;  2  llobb,  331. 

OsBORN  V.  IIerrox.  Washing-machine .  Rejection  of  evi- 
dence. Receiving  notes  as  agent,  void  notes,  machines 
sold.     28  Ga.  313. 


Pacific  Iron  Works  v.  Newhall.  Steam-engines.  Fore- 
closure of  mortgage.  Notes  for  payment.  Seller  not  in- 
ventor. Interpretation  of  contract.  Illegal  representations. 
Set-off.     34  Conn.  67. 

Packet  Co.  v.  Sickles.  Steam-engine.  Interpretation  of 
parol  contract.     10  How.  419 . 

Packet  Co.  v.  Sickles.  Steam-engine.  Rule  of  court  not 
made  part  of  bill  of  exceptions.  Damages.  References  to 
a  Master.     19  Wall.  611. 

Packing  Co.     (See  Wilson  Packing  Co.) 

Page  v.  Dickerson.  Working  iron.  State  jurisdiction  in 
patent  suits.  Note,  no  consideration,  false  representations. 
28  Wis.  694. 

Page  v.  Ferry.  Circulnr-saw  mills.  Charge  to  jury.  Gen- 
eral issue.  Infringement.  Object  of  patent  laws.  Patent- 
ability.    1  Fisher,  298. 

Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  (See  Union  Paper  Bag  Machine 
Co.) 

Paper  Co.     (See  American  Wood  Paper  Co.) 

Paper  Collar  Co.     (See  Union  Paper  Collar  Co.) 

Parham  v.  American  Button-hole,  Overseamixg,  and 
Sewing  Maohine  Co.  Sewing-machine.  Authority  to 
reissue.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  ]\Iere  function 
not  patentable.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  combina- 
tion.    4  Fisher,  468. 

Park  v.  Little.  Fire-engines.  Agreement  to  assign  does  not 
bar  suit.  Novelty,  utility,  infringement.  3  Wash.  196;  1 
Robb,  17. 


90  PATENT     CASE     INDEX. 

Parker  v.  Bamker.  Water-wheel.  No  plea  being  filed,  dec- 
laration is  taken  as  admitted.     Damages.     6  McLean,  631. 

Parker  v.  Bigleu.  Water-wheel.  Retaxing  costs,  expense  of 
models,  marshal's  fees  for  witnesses  out  of  State.  1  Fisher, 
285. 

Parker  v.  Brant.  Water-wheel.  Preliminary  injunctions. 
Verdicts  at  law.     Want  of  novelty.     1  Fisher,  58. 

Parker  v.  Corbin.  Water-wheels.  Unwitting  infringement, 
only  compensatory  damages.     4  McLean,  462;  2  Robb,736. 

Parker  v.  Ferguson.     Watei--wheel.      Want  of  novelty.     1 

Blatch.  407. 
Parker  v.  Hallock.     No  statute  of  limitations  in  patents.     2 

Fisher,  543. 

Parker  v.  Hatfield.  Water-wheel.  Issues  for  jury  or  for 
masters.  Injunction  may  be  issued  on  such  report.  Want 
of  novelty.     4  McLean,  61. 

Parker  v.  Hawk.  Water-wheel.  Plea  of  State  statute  of 
limitations  is  good.     2  Fisher,  58. 

Parker  v.  Haworth.  Water-wheels.  Assignments  in  whole 
or  part.  Allegation  that  infringement  was  contrary  to 
statute  is  not  necessary.  Infringement,  combination,  must 
use  all  the  parts.     4  McLean,  370;  2  Robb,  725. 

Parker  v.  Hulme.  Water-wheel.  Charge  to  jury.  Con- 
struction of  patent  is  for  court.  Patentability.  Original 
inventor,  ■pa.tent  prima  facie  evidence.  Infringement,  dam- 
ages.    1  Fisher,  44. 

Parker  v.  Remhof.  Box-fastenings.  Infringement,  equiva- 
lents. Want  of  novelty,  burden  of  proof.  14  Off.  Gaz. 
601. 

Parker  v.  Sears.  Water-wheel.  Preliminai-y  injunctions, 
what  court  is  bound  to  do,  hardship  on  defendant.  1  Fisher, 
93. 

Parker  v.  Stiles.  Water-wheel.  Charge  to  jury.  Patents 
are  not  monopolies.  Uncertainty  in  specification.  Patents 
are  liberally  construed.  Original  inventor.  Want  of  nov- 
elty. Patentability,  utility.  Infringement,  burden  of 
proof,  mechanical  equivalents.     5  McLean,  44. 


LIST     OF    CASES.  91 

Parkhurst  V.  Kinsman.  Cotton-machine.  Original  inventor. 
Estoppel  by  agreement.  Agreement  in  restraint  of  trade. 
Change  of  form.     1  Blatch.  488. 

Parsons  v.  Barnard.  No  State  jurisdiction  in  patent  suits. 
7  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  144. 

Patterson  v.  Commonwealth.  Illuminating  oils.  Sales  of 
patented  articles.  State  legislation.  Right  of  patentee  to 
sell.  Injury  to  public  morals,  health,  or  safety.  11  Bush 
(Ky.),  311. 

Patterson  v.  Commonwealth  of  Kentucky.  Aurora  oil. 
Constitutionality  of  Kentucky  law  regulating  sale  of  pat- 
ented oil.     7  Otto,  501. 

Peabody  v.  Norfolk.  Cloth  machinery.  Contract.  Inven- 
tion kept  secret,  injunction  against  disclosure.  98  Mass. 
452. 

Pearl  v.  Ocean  Mills.  Bobbins  and  spindles.  Want  of 
novelty,  state  of  art.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Prior 
knowledge  and  use.     11  Off.  Gaz.  2. 

Peck  v.  Bacon.  Shingle-machine.  Note,  amending  decla- 
ration by  new  count.     Testimony.     18  Conn.  377. 

Peck  v.  Farrington.  Shingle-machine.  Note,  void  patent. 
9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  44. 

Peek  v.  Frame.  Sawing-machine.  Increasing  damages,  ag- 
gravated conduct  of  defendant.  9  Blatch.  194;  5  Fisher, 
113. 

Peek  v.  Frame.  Sawing-machine.  Allowance  of  costs.  5 
Fisher,  211. 

Pelton  v.  Waters.  Lubricators.  Several  applications,  issue 
presumed  to  be  on  first.  Accidental  making  is  not  inven- 
tion.    Infringement.     7  Off.  Gaz.  425. 

Pencil  Co.     (See  Rubber  Tip  Pencil  Co.) 

Pennock,  J.  L.  Rolling  iron.  Appeals  from  Commissioner. 
Patentability,  particular  patent.     5  Off.  Gaz.  668. 

Pennock  v.  Beale.  Puddling-furnace.  Decree.  13  Off.  Gaz. 
125. 


92  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Penxock  v.  Dialogue.  Tube-making.  Original  inventor, 
patent />ro?!a/acje  evidence.  Abandonment.  4  Wash.  538; 
1  Robb,  466. 

Pennock  v.  Dialogue.  Tube-making.  Irregular  putting  evi- 
dence on  record.  What  "  not  known  or  used  before  his 
application  "  means.     2  Peters,  1;  1  Robb,  542. 

Pennsylvania  Salt  Co.  v.  Gugenheim.  Putting  up  salt. 
Particular  patent.  State  of  the  art.  Proper  subjects  of 
patents.     3  Fisher,  423. 

Pennsylvania  Salt  Co.  v.  Myers.  Successive  bills  for  con- 
tinuing infringements.  Preliminary  injunction  granted, 
pendency  of  other  suit.     1  Weekly  Notes,  377. 

Pennsylvania  Salt  Co.  v.  Thomas.  Caustic  alkalies.  Re- 
issue not  for  same  invention.  Patentability  shown  by 
utility.     Infringement,  foi-mal  differences.     5  Fisher,  148. 

Pentlarge  v.  Beeston.  Bungs  for  casks.  Preliminary  in- 
junctions, plaintiff  having  patent,  defendant  not.  Original 
inventor.     14  Blatch.  352. 

Perrigo  y.  Spaulding.  Clover-machine.  Patentee  having  full 
satisfaction  from  maker  cannot  sue  purchaser  of  a  machine 
covered  by  the  decree.     13  Blatch.  389;  12  Off.  Gaz.  352. 

Perry  i\  Corning.  Stoves.  Jurisdiction,  bills  for  discovery 
and  account,  bills  for  account  only.     6  Blatch.  134. 

Perry  v.  Corning.  Stoves.  Recording  assignments.  Ade- 
quate remedy  at  law.  Title  of  plaintiff.  Warranty.  7 
Blatch.  195. 

Petkrson  v.  Wooden.  Stove.  Too  large  claims,  void  pro 
tanto  under  act  of  1837.  Bad  declaration,  leave  to  amend. 
3  McLean,  248.     2  Robb,  116. 

Pettibone  v.  Derringer.  Fire-arras.  Uncertainty  in  speci- 
fication. Depositions  de  bene  esse.  AYhat  depositions  may 
be  admitted.     4  Wash.  215;  1  Robb,  152. 

Phelps  v.  Brown.  Brass  kettles.  Purpose  of  caveats.  4 
Blatch.  362;  1  Fisher,  479. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  93 

Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Railroad  v.  Stimpsox.  Turn- 
ing sliort  curves.  Admission  of  evidence.  Reissues  prima 
facie  valid.  Proper  questions  to  witness.  14  Peters,  448; 
2  Robb,  46. 

Philadelphia,  Wilmington,  and  Baltimore  Railroad. 
(See  Railroad  Co.  v.  Dubois;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Trim- 
ble.) 

Phillip  V.  Nock.  Ink-stands.  Measure- of  damages.  17  Wall. 
460. 

Phillips  v.  Combstock.  Right  of  special  pleas.  4  McLean, 
525;  2  Robb,  724. 

Phillips  v.  Page.  Saw-mill.  Instructions  to  jury.  Construc- 
tion of  patents.     Time  of  prior  knowledge.    24  How.  164. 

Pickering  i'.  McCulloch.  Plumbago  crucible.  Abandon- 
ment, evidence  of.     13  Off.  Gaz.  818. 

Pickering  v.  Phillips.  Plumbago  crucible.  Thirty  days' 
notice  of  prior  use,  &c.  Want  of  novelty,  patent  prima 
facie  evidence.  Agreement.  Infringement,  taken  as  a 
whole.     10  Off.  Gaz.  420. 

Pierce  r.  Wilson.  Loom.  Rescission  of  contracts  in  equity, 
fraud,  laches,  parol  evidence.     34  Ala.  596. 

PiERSON  V.  Eagle  Screw  Co.  Screw-machine.  Bona  fide 
purchasers.  Abandonment.  Damages.  3  Story,  402;  2 
Robb,  208. 

Pike  v.  Potter.  Preserving  meat.  Object  of  patent  law. 
Fraud  of  government,  limitations  not  accepted  by  patentee. 
Construction  of  patents.  Clearness  in  specification.  3 
Fisher,  55. 

Pike  v.  Providence  and  Worcester  Railroad.  Si>ark- 
arrester.  Construction  of  patents,  state  of  art.  Infringe- 
ment, substantial  identity.    1  Holmes,  445 ;  6  Off.  Gaz.  575. 

Pin  Co.     (See  American  Pin  Co.) 

Piper  v.  Brown.  Preserving  fish.  What  patents  are  for. 
Date  of  invention.  Principle  is  not  patentable.  Infringe- 
ment, process.     1  Holmes,  20;  4  Fisher,  175. 


94  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

Piper  v.  Brown.  Preserving  fish.  Master's  report.  Profits. 
Findings  of  fact.  1  Holmes,  196;  6  Fisher,  240;  3  Off. 
Gaz.  97. 

Piper  v.  Moon.  Preserving  fish.  Particular  patent,  want  of 
novelty.     10  Blatch.  261;  6  Fisher,  180;  3  Off.  Gaz.  4. 

Piper  v.  Moon.  Preserving  fish.  Above  afiirmed.  1  Otto, 
44;  10  Off.  Gaz.  420. 

Pitcher  v.  United  States.  Brooms.  Use  by  warden  of 
penitentiary.  Use  by  United  States  government  is  not  a 
taking  of  private  property  for  public  use,  but  is  an  infringe- 
ment. Court  of  claims  has  no  jurisdiction  in  such  cases. 
1  N.  &  H.  7. 

Pitts  v.  Edmonds.  Planing-machine.  Original  inventor, 
patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Want  of  novelty  must  be 
specially  set  up.  Infringement,  combination.  1  Bissell, 
168;  2  Fisher,  52. 

Pitts  v.  Hall.  Horse-power.  Charge  to  jury.  Original  in- 
ventor, under  patent  law.  Forfeiture.  Abandonment. 
Damages.     2  Blatch.  229. 

Pitts  v.  Hall.  Horse-power.  Agreement.  Joint  patentees 
are  not  copartners.     Rights  of  joint  owners.     3  Blatch.  201. 

Pitts  v.  Jameson.  Threshing-machine.  Agreement  inter- 
preted. Authority  to  build,  no  bar  to  action.  15  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  310. 

Pitts  v.  Wemple.  Planing-machine.  Construction  of  pat- 
ents, state  of  art.  Want  of  novelty,  practical.  Infringe- 
ment, one  claim,  colorable  alteration.  1  Bissell,  87;  2 
Fisher,  10. 

Pitts  v.  Whitman.  Threshing-machine.  Bona  fide  pur- 
chasers. Assignments,  time  to  record.  Form  of  instruc- 
tions to  jury.  Profert  of  letters-patent  makes  them  part  of 
declaration.  Construction  of  patents.  2  Story,  609;  2 
Robb,  189. 

Plastic  Slate  Roofing  Joint  Stock  Co.  v.  Moore.  Com- 
position roof.     Want  of  novelty,  prior  use.     1  Holmes,  167. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  96 

Platt  v.  United  States  Patent  Button,  Rivet  Needle, 
AND  Machine  Manufacturing  Co.  Buttons,  &c.  Par- 
ticular patent,  utility,  want  of  novelty.  9  Blatch.  342;  5 
Fi-sher,  205;  1  Off.  Gaz.  524. 

Platts,  Ex  Parte.  Crimping  leather.  Right  to  reissue.  Prac- 
tice of  putting  reissues  in  interference  with  unexpired 
patents  condemned.     15  Off.  Gaz.  827. 

Poillon  v.  Schmidt.  Steam-tight  joints.  Particular  patent. 
Validity  of  claims  to  cover  art.  6  Blatch.  299 ;  3  Fisher, 
476. 

PoppENHusEN  V.  Falke.  Treating  caoutchouc.  Joint  in- 
fringers. Preliminary  injunctions.  Prior  decision.  Re- 
issue not  for  same  invention.  Reissue  prima  facie  good. 
4  Blatch.  493;  2  Fisher,  181. 

PoppENHUSEN  V.  Falke.  Treating  caoutchouc.  Amount 
of  inventive  skill  required.  Infringement,  equivalents. 
Reissues  after  adverse  decisions  on  patent  may  be  good.  5 
Blatch.  46;  2  Fisher,  213. 

Poppenhusen  v.  New  York  Gutta-percha  Comb  Co. 
Treating  caoutchouc.  Construction  of  patents  for  the  court. 
Patent  jsriffia /aci'e  evidence  of  original  inventor.  Want  of 
novelty.     2  Fisher,  62. 

Poppenhusen  v.  New  York  Gutta-percha  Comb  Co. 
Treating  caoutchouc.  Preliminary  injunctions,  object  of. 
Prior  verdict  at  law.  Future  violations.  4  Blatch.  184; 
2  Fisher,  74. 

Poppenhusen  v.  New  York  Gutta-percha  Comb  Co. 
Treating  caoutchouc.  Violation  of  injunction  by  using 
equivalent.     4  Blatch.  253 ;  2  Fisher,  80. 

Potter  v.  Braunsdorf.  Sewing-machine.  Reissue  by 
assignee,  extension  by  patentee,  held  good.     7  Blatch.  97. 

Potter  v.  Crowell.  Sewing-machines.  Preliminary  in- 
junctions. Sales  by  agent.  Past  injuries  which  cannot  be 
renewed  will  not  furnish  ground  for  injunction.  1  Abbott, 
89;  3  Fisher,  112. 


96  PATENT     CASE     INDEX. 

Potter  v.  Davis  Sewing  Machine  Co.  Sewing-machine. 
Infringement,  substantial  equivalents.     3  Fisher,  472. 

Potter  v.  Dixon.  Sewing-machine.  Power  of  Commissioner 
in  interferences  by  statute.     5  Blatch.  160;  2  Fisher,  381. 

Pqtter  v.  Empire  Sewing  Machine  Co.  Sewing-machine. 
Prior  decisions.  Extension  vests  whole  title  without  re- 
gard to  where  title  was  at  time  of  reissue.     3  Fisher,  474. 

Potter  v.  Fuller.  Sewing-machine.  Preliminary  injunc- 
tions, irreparable  injury  to  defendant,  infringement  clear, 
general  acquiescence,  prior  decisions.  Original  inventor. 
2  Fisher,  251. 

Potter  v.  Holland.  Sewing-machines.  Right  to  reissue. 
Assignments  and  licenses.  Right  to  sue.  Disclaimers.  4 
Blatch.  206;  1  Fisher,  327. 

Potter  v.  Holland.  Sewing-machines.  Preliminary  injunc- 
tions, patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Reissues.  Want  of 
novelty.  Patents  liberally  construed.  Quiet  enjoyment. 
Prior  decisions.  Infringement.  4  Blatch.  238;  1  Fisher, 
382. 

Potter  v.  Mack.  Sewing-machine.  No  appeal  lies  from  de- 
cree for  injunction  and  account  till  Master  reports.  In- 
junction should  not  be  suspended  till  final  deci-ee.  3 
Fisher,  428. 

Potter  v.  Muller.  Sewing-machine.  Preliminary  injunc- 
tions, practice.  Original  inventor.  Want  of  novelty. 
Prior  decisions.  No  fixed  length  of  possession.  2  Fisher, 
465. 

Potter  r.  Muller.  Sewing-machine.  Contempt,  defendant 
enjoined  from  making  and  selling,  begins  to  sell  as  agent. 
1  Bond,  601;  2  Fisher,  631. 

Potter  v.  Schenck.  Sewing-machine.  Preliminary  injunc- 
tion. Infringement,  substantial  variation,  same  principle. 
1  Bissell,  515;  3  Fisher,  82. 

Potter  v.  Stevens.  Sewing-machine.  Patent  applications 
are  ex  parte  only.  Defendant  must  overcome  plaintiff's 
prima  facie  case.     2  Fisher,  163. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  97 

Potter  v.  Thayer.     Buttons.      Particular  patent,  invalidity. 

1  Holmes,  293;  6  Fisher,  603;  5  Off.  Gaz.  32. 

Potter  v.  Whitney.  Sewing-machine.  Granting  prelimi- 
nary injunctions,  title,  infringement,  peculiar  circum- 
stances.    1  Lowell,  87;  3  Fisher,  77. 

Potter  v.  Wilson.  Sewing-machine.  Original  inventor. 
Non-joinder.     Infringement.     2  Fisher,  102. 

Powder  Co.  v.  Burkhardt.  Dualin.  Seizure  of  materials 
on  execution.     Contract.     7  Otto,  110. 

Price    v.    Kelly.        Circus-seats.        Infringement,    want    of 

novelty.     11  Off.  Gaz.  639. 
Printing  Press  Co.     (See  Bullock  Printing  Press  Co.) 

Prouty  r.  Draper.  Plow.  Infringement,  combination,  must 
be  whole.     1  Story,  568;  2  Robb,  75. 

Prouty  v.  Ruggles.  Plow.  Construction  of  patents.  In- 
fringement, combination,  must  be  whole.     16  Peters,  336; 

2  Robb,  93. 

Providence  Rubber  Co.  r.  Goodyear.  India-rubber.  Sur- 
rogate jurisdiction,  domicile  of  patentee  when  he  died- 
Executor's  right  to  reissue.  Uncertainty  in  specification. 
Original  inventor.  Patentability  in  general.  Decisions  of 
Commissioner.  Interpretation  of  license.  Account,  prof- 
its.    9  Wall.  788. 

Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear.  India-rubber.  BiU 
of  review,  laches.     9  Wall.  805. 

Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear.  India-rubber.  What 
constitutes  a  cross-bill.     9  Wall.  807. 

Putnam  v.  IIickey.  Bottle-stopper  fastenings.  Original  in- 
ventor. Foreign  patents.  3  BisseU,  157;  5  Fisher,  334; 
2  Off.  Gaz.  225. 

Putnam  v.  Wetherbee.  Bottle-stopper  fastenings.  Want 
of  novelty,  state  of  art.     1  Holmes,  497;  8  Off.  Gaz.  320. 

Putnam  v.  Yerrington.  Bottle-stopper  fastenings.  Change 
of  material  not  patentable.  Want  of  novelty,  burden  of 
proof.  Prior  decisions.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention. 
9  Off.  Gaz.  6S9. 

7 


98  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


R. 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Dubois.  Truss-bridges.  Construction  of 
patents,  combinations.  Silence  as  estoppel.  Oral  reveal- 
ing of  patented  invention  before  patent.  Notice  of  defenses 
required.     12  Wall.  47. 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Sayles.  (See  Chicago  and  Northwest- 
ern Railroad  v.  Sayles.) 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Stimpson.  (See  Philadelphia  and  Tren- 
ton Railroad  Co.) 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Trimble.  Truss-bridges.  Deed  of  extended 
patent  before  extension.     10  Wall.  367. 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Turrill.  (See  Illinois  Central  Rail- 
road Co.) 

Railroad   Co.    v.   Winans.      (See   York    and    Maryland 

R.\ILROAD  Co.) 

Rake  Co.     (See  Dorsey  Harvester  and  Revolving  Rake 

Co.  ;  National  Hay  Rake  Co.) 
Ransom  v.  Mayor  of  New  York.     Fire-engines.     Waiver  of 

conditions  imposed  by  court.     Supersedeas.    4  Blatch.  157. 

Ransom  v.  Mayor  of  New  York.  Fire-engines.  Charge  to 
jury.  Patents  are  government  contracts.  Construction  of 
statutes.  Original  inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence. 
Inventive  skill.  Abandoned  experiments.  Private  use. 
Reasonable  diligence.     Abandonment.     1  Fisher,  252. 

Rapp  v.  Bard.  Gold  pens.  Interfering  patents.  Patents 
confined  to  particular  shape.     1  Fisher,  198. 

Rathbone  v.  Orr.  Stove.  Assignments  before  issue,  poverty, 
&c.     5  McLean,  131. 

Read  v.  Bowman.  Harvester.  Construction  of  agreement. 
Estoppel.     Right  to  reissue.     2  Wall.  591. 

Read  v.  Miller.  Harvester.  General  issue,  special  pleas. 
State  Statute  of  Limitations  cannot  be  pleaded.  2  Bissell, 
12;  3  Fisher,  310. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  99 

Reckendorfer  v.  Fader.  Lead-pencil  and  eraser.  Want  of 
novelty,  state  of  art.  Infringement,  narrow  claim.  12 
Blatch.  68;  5  Off.  Gaz.  697. 

Reckendorfer  v.  Faber.  Lead-pencil  and  eraser.  Com- 
missioner's allowance  of  patent  is  only  prima  facie  right. 
What  patentable  combinations  are.  2  Otto,  ;M7;  10  Off. 
Gaz.  71. 

Reed  v.  Cutter.  Pump.  Who  are  entitled  to  patents.  Prior 
use,  extent.  Patentability,  incompleteness.  Disclaimers. 
1  Story,  590;  2  Robb,  81. 

Reed  v.  Reed.  Head-linings  for  barrels.  Result  not  patent- 
able.    12  Blatch.  36G;  8  Off.  Gaz.  193. 

Reedy  v.  Scott.  Hoisting-machine.  Surrender  of  patents, 
bars  suits.  Infringement  of  reissue  is  new  cause  of  action. 
Reissue  must  be  for  same  invention.  Arbitrators  are  pre- 
sumed to  decide  correctly.     7  Off.  Gaz.  463. 

Rees  0.  Gould.  Steam-engines.  Patentable  combinations, 
special  notice  under  general  issue.  Infringement,  combi- 
nation, omission  of  one  ingredient.  6  Fisher,  106;  2  Off. 
Gaz.  62L 

Reeves  v.  Keystone  Bridge  Co.  Bridges.  Utility.  Original 
inventor,  printed  publications  for  private  use.  Want  of 
novelty,  date  of  invention  shown  by  sketches.  5  Fisher, 
456;  9  Phila.  368;  1  Off.  Gaz.  466. 

Reeves  v.  Keystone  Bridge  Co.  Bridges.  Rehearing  for 
new  evidence  at  any  time  before  final  decree.  Evidence 
must  be  material,  and  no  negligence.     9  Off.  Gaz.  885. 

Refrigerator  Co.  (See  Lyman  Ventilating  and  Re- 
frigerating Co.) 

Reissner  v.  Anness.  Coal-oil  stoves.  Duplicity  in  pleading. 
Only  one  defense  in  one  plea.     12  Off.  Gaz.  842. 

Reissner  v.  Anness.  Coal-oil  stoves.  Pleading,  order  is  rep- 
lication, then  testimony.     13  Off.  Gaz.  7. 

Reissner  w.  Anness.  Coal-oil  stoves.  Reissue  presumed  valid. 
Features  of  model  may  be  in  reissue,  though  not  in  original. 
13  Off.  Gaz.  870. 


100  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Remington  v.  Ali.en.  Fire-arms.  Patent  of  copartner  be- 
longs to  firm.     109  Mass.  47. 

Renwick  v.  Cooper.  Fire-arms.  Preliminary  injunctions. 
Infringement,  particular  patent.  10  Blatch.  201 ;  6  Fisher, 
21. 

Renwick  v.  Pond.  Fire-arms.  Original  inventor.  Reissue 
not  for  same  invention.  10  Blatch.  39;  5  Fisher,  569;  2 
Off.  Gaz.  392. 

Reutgen  v.  Kanowrs.  Iron-rounder.  Original  inventor. 
What  infringement  is.  Clearness  in  specification.  1  Wash. 
168;  1  Robb,  1. 

Revolving  Rake  Co.  (See  Dorset  Harvester  and  Re- 
volving Rake  Co.) 

Rheem  v.  Holliday.  Water-wheel.  Want  of  novelty,  new 
element  to  old  machine,  too  broad  claims.     16  Penn.  St.  347. 

Rice  v.  Garnhart.  Harvester.  Agreement  to  sell.  Juris- 
diction of  circuit  courts.  Invalidity  of  patent  as  a  defense. 
34  Wis.  453. 

Rice  v.  Garnhart.  Harvester.  Double  costs  for  frivolous 
appeals.     34  Wis.  470. 

Rice,  v.  Heald.  Steam-boilers.  Charge  to  jury.  Who  is  en- 
titled to  patent.  Want  of  novelty,  prior  patents.  Degree 
of  utility  required.  Infringement,  mechanical  substitute. 
13  Pac.  L.  R.  33. 

Rich  v.  Atwater.  Planing-machine.  Jurisdiction  in  patent 
suits.  Note,  void  patent.  Admissibility  of  evidence. 
Estoppel  by  license.     16  Conn.  409. 

Rich  v.  Close.  Water-wheel.  Patentee  entitled  only  to 
what  he  claims.  Infringement,  combination,  leaving  out 
new  elements.     8  Blatch.  41;  4  Fisher,  279. 

Rich  v.  Lippincott.  Fire-proof  safes.  Charge  to  jury.  In- 
fringement, same  composition.  Original  inventor,  patent 
prima  facie  evidence.     Abandonment.     2  Fisher,  1. 

Rich  v.  Ricketts.  Statute  of  Limitations,  State  law  is  good 
plea.     7  Blatch.  230. 


LIST     OP    CASES.  101 

Richardson  v.  Lockwood.  Syringe.  Want  of  novelty,  par- 
ticular patent.     G  Fisher,  454;  4  Off.  Gaz.  398. 

Richardson  v.  Notes.  Children's  carriages.  Want  of 
novelty,  not  anticipated  by  incorjiplete  invention.  Infringe- 
ment, selling  parts  to  be  put  together.     10  Off.  Gaz.  507. 

Rifle  Co.    (See  United  States  Rifle  Co.) 

RiTTER  V.  Serrell.  Planing-machiue.  Assignment,  interest 
conveyed  by.     2  Blatch.  379. 

Roberts  v.  Blck.  Refrigerators.  Want  of  notice  of  evidence 
cannot  be  cured  by  amending  answer.  1  Holmes,  224;  6 
Fisher,  325  ;  3  Off.  Gaz.  2(39. 

Roberts  v.  Buck.  Refrigerators.  Decree.  1  Otto,  159;  10 
Off.  Gaz.  206. 

Roberts  t;.  Dickey.  Oil-wells.  Patentability  of  "  art."  Want 
of  novelty,  publications.     4  Fisher,  532;  1  Off.  Gaz.  4. 

Roberts  v.  IIarnden.  Refrigerators.  Original  inventor, 
patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Infringement,  combination,  all 
the  elements;  same  means  and  same  result.     2  Cliff.  500. 

Roberts  v.  Reed  Torpedo  Co.  Torpedoes.  Original 
inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Date  of  invention. 
3  Fisher,  629. 

Roberts  v.  Roter.  Oil-wells.  Construction  of  patent,  state 
of  art.     5  Fisher,  295. 

Roberts  v.  11yp:r.  Refrigerators.  Want  of  novelty.  Origi- 
nal inventor.  11  Blatch.  11;  6  Fisher,  293;  3  Off.  Gaz. 
551. 

Roberts  v.  Ryer.  Refrigerators.  Original  inventor,  par- 
ticular patent.  New  use  of  old  machine  is  not  patentable. 
1  Otto,  150;  10  Off.  Gaz.  204. 

Roberts  v.  Schuyler.  Fire-arms.  Motion  for  new  trial, 
against  evidence,  when  set  aside.  Weight  of  jury's  deci- 
sion in  patent  suits.     12  Blatch.  444. 

Roberts  v.  Ward.  Box-machinery.  Degree  of  utility  re- 
quired.    Want  of  novelty.     4  McLean,  565;  2  Robb,  746. 

Robertson  v.  Blake.  Stone-breaker.  Utility.  Want  of 
novelty.  Infringement,  combination.  Cross-appeals.  4 
Otto,  728;  11  Off.  Gaz.  877. 


102  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Robertson  v.  Garrett.  Hand-stamp.  Want  of  usefulness 
as  a  defense.     10  Blatch.  490;  6  Fisher,  278. 

Robertson  v.  Hill.  Hand-stamp.  Preliminary  injunctions. 
AVhere  patent  has  been  adjudged  valid  in  three  decisions, 
court  will  hear  evidence  only  on  infringement.  6  Fisher, 
465;  4  Off.  Gaz.  132. 

Robertson  v.  Secombe  Manufacturing  Co.  Hand-stamp. 
Want  of  novelty.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention,  putting 
in  a  comma.  Original  inventor.  10  Blatch.  481;  6  Fisher, 
268;  3  Off.  Gaz.  412. 

Robinson,  Ex  Parte.  India-rubber.  State  legislation  against 
sale  of  patents  is  void.     2  Bissell,  309;  4  Fisher,  186. 

Robinson  v.  Hodge.  Car-brake.  Liability  of  administrator, 
royalties  are  not  "  new  assets."     117  Mass.  222. 

Rock  Drill  Co.     (See  Burleigh  Rock  Drill  Co.) 

Roemer  v.  Simon.  Travelling-bags.  Want  of  notice  of  wit- 
ness must  be  objected  to  at  the  time.  Prior  use  without 
knowledge  of  patentee  avoids  his  patent.  Burden  of  proof. 
Foreign  prior  use,  notice.     5  Off.  Gaz.  555. 

Roemer  v.  Simon.  Travelling-bags.  Prior  knowledge,  notice 
in  answer  that  parties  are  unknown,  amended  tiunc  pro 
tunc.     Above  affirmed.     5  Otto,  214;  12  Off.  Gaz.  796. 

Rogers  v.  Abbot.  Terms  imposed  on  granting  injunctions. 
4  Wash.  514;  1  Robb,  465. 

Rogers  v.  Ennis.  Table-beverage.  Certain  patents  require 
narrow  grounds.     14  Off.  Gaz.  601. 

Rogers  v.  Sargent.  Wire-staple.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention.    Patentability  of  invention.     7  Blatch.  507. 

Roof  Co.     (See  Plastic  Slate  Roofing  Joint-stock  Co.) 

Root  v.  Ball.  Stove.  Plea  of  prior  use  without  abandon- 
ment is  demurrable.  Same  patent  cannot  cover  two  distinct 
machines.    4  McLean,  177;  2  Robb,  513. 

Roots  v.  Hyndman.  Rotary  blower  case.  Want  of  novelty, 
particular  patent.     6  Fisher,  439 ;  4  Off.  Gaz.  29. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  103 

Rose  i;.  Hurley.  Churns.  Note,  warranty  of  patent-right. 
Parol  evidence.  Fiaudulent  representations.  Right  to 
rescind,  estoppel.     39  Ind.  77. 

Ross  V.  WoLFixGEii.  Cabinets  and  sewing-machine.  Want 
of  novelty,  particular  patent.     5  Off.  Gaz.  117. 

Rouse  v.  Fletcher.     Well-drills.     Decree.     9  Off.  Gaz.  838. 

RowE  V.  Blanchard.  Harrows.  Note,  useless  patent.  What 
"utility  "is.     18  Wise.  441. 

Rowley  v.  Mason.  Abandonment,  neglect  for  nine  years.  2 
Am.  L.  T.  (U.  S.)  R.  106. 

Rubber  Co.  (See  New  York  Rubber  Co.  ;  Providence 
Rubber  Co.) 

Rubber  Coated  Harness  Trimming  Co.  v.  Welling.  Mar- 
tingale rings.  Want  of  novelty.  Construction  of  patents, 
state  of  art.     Technical  terms.     7  Otto,  7 ;  13  Off.  Gaz.  727. 

Rubber  Comb  Co.     (See  India-rubber  Comb  Co.) 

Rubber  Step  Co.  v.  Metropolitan  Railroad.  Carriage- 
steps.     Particular  patent,  validity.     13  Off.  Gaz.  549. 

Rubber  Tip  Pencil  Co.  v.  Howard.  Pencil-heads.  Con- 
struction of  patents,  want  of  novelty.  9  Blatch.  490;  5 
Fisher,  377 ;  1  Off.  Gaz.  407. 

Rubber  Tip  Pencil  Co.  v.  Howard.  Pencil-heads.  Idea  is 
not  patentable.     20  Wall.  498;  7  Off.  Gaz.  172. 

Ruffle  Co.     (See  Magic  Ruffle  Co.) 

RuGGLES  V.  Eddy.  Coal-stoves.  Effect  of  assignment,  parol 
evidence  to  vary  it  not  admissible.  Equitable  title  gives 
right  to  sue.     10  Blatch.  52;  5  Fisher,    581. 

RuGGLES  V.  Eddy.  Coal-stoves.  Master's  report,  damages, 
too  narrow  construction  of  claims.  Infringement  of  com- 
bination and  its  parts.     12  Off.  Gaz.  716. 

RuGGLES  V.  Eddy.  Coal-stoves.  Cannot  amend  answ^er  after 
decree  by  striking  out  admission  of  infringement.  11 
Blatch.  524. 

Rule  Co.     (See  Stanley  Rule  and  Level  Co.) 


104  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

RuMFORD  Chemical  Works  v.  Hecker.  Acid  for  soda-pow- 
ders. Want  of  novelty,  particular  patent.  10  Blatch.  136 ; 
5  Fisher,  628;  3  Off.  Gaz.  319. 

RuMFORD  Chemical  Works  v.  Hecker.  Acid  for  soda-pow- 
ders. Accounting.  Court  has  no  power  to  regulate  plain- 
tiff's proceedings  in  other  courts.  11  Blatch.  552;  5  Off. 
Gaz.  644. 

RuMFOED  Chemical  Works  v.  Hecker.  Acid  for  soda-pow- 
ders. Decrees,  res  aJJudicatce,  interlocutory,  rule  of  comity. 
10  Off.  Gaz.  289. 

RuMFORD  Chemical  Works  v.  Hecker.  Acid  for  soda-pow- 
ders. Reference  to  Master  is  not  res  adjudicatce.  Rule  of 
damages.  Practice  of  staying  injunction  till  Master  re- 
ports condemned.     11  Off.  Gaz.  330. 

Rumford  Chemical  Works  v.  Laner.  Acid  for  soda-pow- 
ders. Want  of  novelty,  particular  patent.  10  Blatch.  122; 
5  Fisher,  615;  3  Off.  Gaz.  319. 

Rumford  Chemical  Works  v.  Vice.  Self-raising  flour.  Pre- 
liminary injunctions,  no  laches  of  plaintiff,  no  injury  to 
particular  defendant,  granted.     14   Blatch.    179;    11  Off. 

Russell  v.  Dodge.  Preparing  leather.  Reissue  not  for  same 
invention.  Reissues  generally.  Want  of  novelty.  3  Otto, 
460;  11  Off.  Gaz.  151. 

Russell  v.  Lathrop.  Cutlery.  Contract,  admissibility  of 
evidence.     117  Mass.  424. 

Russell  v.  Lathrop.  Cutlery.  Order  ^^  pro  confesso  "  is  not 
a  decree  establishing  validity  of  patent  in  sense  of  the  agree- 
ment.    122  Mass.  300. 

Russell  v.  Place.  Preparing  leather.  Excessive  damages. 
9  Blatch.  173;  5  Fisher,  134. 

Russell  v.  Place.  Preparing  leather.  Judgment  as  estop- 
pel, certainty  of  record  required.  4  Otto,  606;  12  Off.  Gaz. 
53. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  105 

Russell  and  Erwin  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Malloky. 
Reversible  locks.  Defense  must  be  set  up  in  answer,  pro- 
priety of  the  rule.  Original  inventor.  Abandonment, 
mere  lapse  of  time  not  conclusive.  10  Blatch.  140;  5 
Fisher,  632;  2  Off.  Gaz.  495. 

Russell  and  Erwin  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Manufactur- 
ing Co.  Reversible  locks.  Infringement,  immaterial 
variations,  same  result  by  same  means.  12  Blatch.  36;  7 
Off.  Gaz.  383. 

Ryan  v.  Goodwin  (probably  By  am).  Matches.  Novelty  of 
combinations.  What  public  use  and  sale  is.  Uncertainty 
in  specification.     3  Sumn.  514;  1  Robb,  725. 

s. 

S.  AND  B.  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Coke  Co.  (See  Still- 
well,  &c.  Co.) 

Saddle  Co.     (See  American  Saddle  Co.) 

Safety  Truck  Co.  (See  Locomotive  Engine  Safety 
Truck  Co.) 

Salamander  Co.  (See  United  States  and  Foreign  Sal- 
amander Felting  Co.) 

Salt  Co.     (See  Pennsylvania  Salt  Co.) 

Sanders  v.  Logan.  Thi-eshing-machine.  Injunctions,  irrepa- 
rable injury,  prior  suit  at  law  not  necessary.  Abandonment. 
Prior  use.     2  Fisher,  167. 

Sands  v.  Wardwell.  Knitting-needle  machine.  Original 
inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Infringement,  com- 
bination, must  be  all  the  parts.     3  Cliff.  277. 

Sanford  v.  Merrimack  Hat  Co.  Hat-machine.  Patentability, 
generally.     What  constitutes  invention.     10  Off.  Gaz.  466. 

Sanford  v.  Messer.  Sewing-machine.  Want  of  parties. 
Difference  between  assignment  and  license.  Original  in- 
ventor.    1  Holmes,  149;  5  Fisher,  411;  2  Off.  Gaz.  470. 

Sangster  v.  Miller.  Lanterns.  Want  of  novelty.  5  Blatch. 
243;  2  Fisher,  563. 


106  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Sargent  v.  Carter.  Apple-parer.  Preliminary  injunctions. 
Original  inventor,  consumer's  acquiescence.     ],_  Fisher,  277. 

Sargent  v.  Larned.  Apple-parer.  Covenant  not  to  in- 
fringe, estoppel  to  dispute  validity.  Infringement,  change 
of  form.     2  Curtis,  340. 

Sargent  v.  Seagrave.  Apple-parer,  Preliminary  injunc- 
tions, acquiescence  under  a  caveat.  Length  of  exclusive 
possession  required.     2  Curtis,  553. 

Sargent  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Woodruff.  Buckles. 
Preliminaiy  injunctions,  prior  decisions,  ruling  not  enough. 
Presumption  from  defendants'  having  a  patent  is' against 
infringement.     5  Bissell,  444. 

Sarven  v.  Hall.  Carriage-wheels.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention, outside  evidence.  Object  of  reissues.  Patentable 
kinds  of  combinations.  AYant  of  novelty,  patent  prima 
facie  evidence,  aggregation  of  parts.  9  Blatch.  524 ;  5 
Fisher,  415;  1  Oif.  Gaz.  437. 

Sarven  v.  Hall.  Carriage-wheels.  Construction  of  patents, 
whole  taken  together.  Infringement,  combination,  equiva- 
lents.    11  Blatch.  295;  6  Fisher,  495;  4  OfE.  Gaz.  666. 

Sawin  v.  Guild.  Nail-machine.  Sale  of  materials  by  sheriff 
is  not  infringement.     1  Gall.  485;  1  Robb,  47. 

Sawyer  v.  Bixby.  Putting  up  powders.  Want  of  novelty, 
particular  patent.  9  Blatch.  361;  5  Fisher,  283;  1  Off. 
Gaz.  165. 

Saxe  v.  Hammond.  Tremolo  attachment.  Infringement, 
combination,  making  one  part.  Where  no  infringement  is 
found  court  will  not  pass  on  novelty.  1  Holmes,  456;  7 
Off.  Gaz.  781. 

Saxton  v.  Aultman.  Recording  assignments,  precedence.  15 
Ohio  St.  471. 

Saxton  v.  Dodge.  Reaper.  Note,  consideration.  Indorse- 
ment by  payee.  Estoppel  on  nudum  pactum.  57  Barb.  (N. 
y.)  84. 

Sayles  v.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railroad.  Car- 
brakes.  Want  of  novelty,  anticipating  machine  must  be 
practical.     1  Bissell,  468;  2  Fisher,  523. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  107 

Sayi-es  v.  Chicago  and  Noktiiwestern  Railroad.  Car- 
brakes.  Positive  and  negative  evidence.  Aj^proximations 
to  inventions,  great  utility  and  non-use  inconsistent.  3 
Bissell,  52;  4  Fisher,  586. 

Sayles  r.  Hapgood.  Cultivators.  Original  inventor,  date 
of  conception,  date  of  first  description.  Evidence.  2 
Bissell,  189;  3  Fisher,  632. 

ScAiFE  V.  Fulton's  Sons  &  Co.  Steam-puinp.  Want  of  nov- 
elty.    9  Oif.  Gaz.  1164. 

ScAiFE  V.  Sheriffs.  Steam-pump.  Want  of  novelty.  9  Off. 
Gaz.  1164. 

Schillinger  v.  Gunthek.  Concrete  pavement.  Contempt, 
violation  of  injunction.  Studied  attempt  to  use  plaintiff's 
invention.  Liberal  construction  of  patents.  Fines  for  con- 
tempt.    14  Blatch.  152;  11  Off.  Gaz.  831. 

Schillinger  v.  Gunther.  Concrete  pavement.  Reissues  and 
disclaimers.  Master's  report,  profits  and  damages.  14 
Off.  Gaz.  713. 

ScHUESSLER  V.  Davis.  Buckle-fasteniugs.  Object  of  reissues. 
Want  of  novelty.     13  Off.  Gaz.  1011. 

Schumacher  v.  Cornell.  Wrenches.  Infringement,  com- 
bination is  an  entirety.     6  Otto,  549. 

Schwarzel  v.  Holexsh.^de.  Grain-separators.  Reasons  for 
trebling  damages.     2  Bond,  29;  3  Fisher,  116. 

Scott  v.  Sweet.  Fanning-mills.  Note,  worthless  patent,  no 
consideration.     2  G.  Greene  (Iowa),  224. 

Searls  v.  Van  Nest.  Whip-sockets.  Original  inventor.  Re- 
issue not  for  same  invention.  Infringement,  same  result  in 
same  way.     13  Off.  Gaz.  772. 

Seligman  v.  Day.  Corset-clasp.  Preliminary  injunctions. 
Want  of  novelty.     14  Blatch.  72. 

Serrell  i\  Collins.  Moldings.  Preliminary  injunction. 
Plaintiff  failed  twice  to  establish  validity  at  law.  4  Blatch. 
61. 


108  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Serrell  v.  Collins.  Moldings.  Charge  to  jury.  Patent 
prima  facie  valid.  Construction  for  the  court.  Original 
inventor.  Want  of  novelty.  Utility.  Damages.  1  Fisher, 
289. 

Serviss  v.  Stockstill.  Fruit-cans.  Contract,  evidence,  rep- 
resentations, performance.  Too  general  exceptions  to  charge. 
30  Ohio  St.  418. 

Sewall  v.  Jones.  Preserving  corn.  Original  inventor  must 
be  so  for  whole  world.  Want  of  novelty,  particular  patent. 
1  Otto,  171.     9  Off.  Gaz.  47. 

Sewing  Machine  Co.  (See  Domestic  Sewing  Machine  Co.  ; 
Florence  Sewing  Machine  Co.  ;  Grover  and  Baker 
Sewing  Machine  Co.) 

Seymour  v.  Marsh.  Harvesters.  Scope  of  reissues.  Patents 
for  impractical  inventions.  Judgment  of  United  States 
Supreme  Court  on  facts.  Expert  testimony.  Infringement, 
same  actuating  forces.  Patent  expired,  account  without 
injunction.     6  Fisher,  115;  9  Phila.  380;  2  Off.  Gaz.  675. 

Seymour  v.  McCormick.  Reaper.  Actual  damages,  license 
fees.     16  How.  480. 

Seymour  v.  McCormick.  Reaper.  Disclaimer,  unreasonable 
delay.     19  How.  96. 

Seymour  v.  Osborne.  Harvester.  Construction  of  patents. 
Action  of  Commissioner  on  reissue  not  conclusive.  Object 
of  reissues,  too  broad  claims.  "  Substantially  as  described." 
Infringement.     3  Fisher,  555. 

Seymour  v.  Osborne.  Harvester.  Importance  of  patent  suits. 
Patents  are  not  monopolies.  Original  inventor,  patent 
prima  facie  evidence.  Fraud  not  open  collaterally.  Cer- 
tainty in  specification.  Oath  of  inventors.  Power  to  re- 
issue. Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Patentability,  utility. 
Printed  publications.  Multifariousness.  Infringement, 
comparison  of  machines.     11  Wall.  516.    '/-  /T^-t-f  .    ^^  I 

Shaw  v.  Cooper.  Fire-arms.  Right  to  reissue.  Reissue  re- 
lates to  original.  English  law.  Prior  knowledge  and  use. 
Abandonment.     7  Peters,  29 ;  1  Robb,  643. 

Shaw  and  Wilcox  Co.  v.  Lovejoy.  Recovering  gold  and 
silver.     Result  not  patentable.     7  Blatch.  232. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  109 

Shelly  v.  Braxnan.  Lime-kilns.  Preliminary  injunctions, 
prior  suit  at  law  not  necessary.  2  Bissell,  315;  4  Fisher, 
198. 

Sherman  v.  Champlain  Transportation  Co.  Cut-ofE  valve. 
State  court  has  jurisdiction  where  validity  is  not  necessarily 
involved.  Proof  of  execution  of  instrument,  attestation. 
Sale  of  personal  property,  implied  warranties.  New  trial, 
jury  misunderstanding  the  court.  Repudiating  tenancy. 
Contracts  not  within  a  year.     31  Vt.  162. 

Shoe  Tip,  &c.  Co.     (See  American  Shoe  Tip  Co.) 

Shoup  v.  Henrici.  Oil-well  pump.  Original  inventor.  Prior 
use.     9  Off.  Gaz.  1162. 

Sickels  v.  Borden.  Cut-off  valves.  Idea  not  patentable.  In- 
fringement, tests,  same  result  in  same  way.  Damages, 
license  fee,  profits,  small  fees  in  order  to  introduce  it. 
License  fee  being  measure  of  damages  awarded  by  jury, 
defendant  can  use  for  life  of  patent.     3  Blatch.  535. 

Sickels  v.  Borden.  Cut-off  valves.  Contempt,  violation  of 
injunction,  what  constitutes.     4  Blatch.  14. 

Sickels  v.  Evans.  Cut-off  valves.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention.    2  Cliff.  203;  2  Fisher,  417. 

Sickels  v.  Falls  Co.  Cut-off  valves.  Reissue  after  fourteen 
years  cannot  claim  any  thing  not  specified  in  original,  though 
earlier.     4  Blatch.  508;  2  Fishei-,  202. 

Sickels  v.  Gloucester  Manufacturing  Co.  Steam-engines. 
Jurisdiction,  discovery  and  account  without  injunction. 
Patents  are  liberally  construed.  Original  inventor.  In- 
fringement, comparative  excellence  irrelevant.  1  Fisher, 
222. 

Sickels  v.  Mitchell.  Cut-off  valves.  Preliminary  injunc- 
tions, prior  suit  at  law  not  necessary.  Discontinuance 
of  infringement  no  answer  to  injunction.  General  denial 
of  validity  is  not  enough.     3  Blatch.  548. 

Sickels  r.  Tileston.  Cut-off  valves.  Preliminary  injunctions, 
prior  decision  against  same  machine.     4  Blatch.  109. 


110  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

SiCKELS  V.  Youngs.  Cut-off  valves.  Preliminary  injunctions, 
how  far  into  evidence  court  will  go.  Substantial  identity. 
Irreparable  injury.     3  Blatch.  293. 

SiEBERT  t'.  Garratt.     Lubi'icators.     Decree.    8  Off.  Gaz.  600. 

SiLSBY  V.  FooTE.  stoves.  Effect  of  juryman  becoming  ill. 
Admissibility  of  disclaimer  in  evidence.  Nonsuits  only 
by  consent  of  plaintiff.  Sufficiency  of  notice  of  special 
matter.     14  How.  218. 

SiLSBY  V.  FooTE.  Stoves.  Profits  and  damages.  Disclaimers 
must  be  without  delay.     20  Plow.  378. 

Simpson  v.  Mad  River  Railroad.  Removing  truck-wheels. 
Utility.     Damages.     6  McLean,  603. 

Simpson  v.  Wilson.  Planing-machine.  Rights  of  territorial 
assignee.     4  How.  709;  2  Robb,  469. 

Singer  v.  Braunsdorf.  Sewing-machine.  Public  use  for  two 
years.  Date  of  application.  Abandonment.  Original  in- 
ventor.    7  Blatch.  521. 

Singer  v.  Walmesley.  Sewing-machine.  Charge  to  jury. 
Patents  are  not  monopolies.  Rights  of  patentee,  equiva- 
lents. Construction  of  patents.  Infringement  of  combina- 
tions. Prior  use.  Duty  of  jury.  Result  and  process.  1 
Fisher,  558. 

Singer  Co.  ii.  Union  Co.  Button-hole  machine.  Contract, 
injunction  may  be  granted  to  stop  violation,  though  it  could 
not  be  specifically  performed.  Nature  of  remedy  by  injunc- 
tion.    1  Holmes,  253;  6  Fisher,  480;  4  Off.  Gaz.  553. 

SissoN  V.   Gilbert.     Staves  from  bolts.     Prior  use  for  more 

than  two  years.     9  Blatch.  185;  5  Fisher,  109. 
SizER  V.  Many.     Writ  of  error  after  mandate  brings  up  only 
what  was  done  after  mandate,  here  only  taxation  of  costs, 
so  no  jurisdiction.     16  How.  98 
Skirt  Co.     (See  Woven  Tape  Skirt  Co.) 
Slate  Roof  Co.     (See  Plastic  Slate  Roofing  Co.) 
Slemmer's  Appeal.     Oil-refining.     State  courts  no  jurisdic- 
tion over  validity  of  patents.     Joint  patent  for  sole  inven- 
tion is  void.    Effect  of  suggestions.    Invention  by  employ^. 
58  Penn.  St.  155. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  Ill 

Sloat  v.  Patton.  Planing-machine.  Difference  in  result  is 
evidence  of  difference  in  mode  of  operation.  Patentee's 
right  to  his  invention.     1  Fisher,  154. 

Smith  v.  Allen.  Fire-arms.  Interfering  patents,  reissued  to 
cover  each  other.     2  Fisher,  572. 

Smith  v.  Baker's  Administrators.  Reviving  suit  against 
defendant's  representatives.     Account  without  injunction. 

5  Off.  Gaz.  496. 

Smith  v.  Clark.  Telegraph.  Particular  patent.  3  Am.  L.  J. 
(or  10  Penn.  L.J.)  155. 

Smith  v.  Cummings.  Telegraph.  Preliminary  injunctions  to 
compel  performance  of  agreements.  Effect  of  substantia] 
controversy  on  issuing  injunctions.     1  Fisher,  152. 

Smith  v.  Downing.  Telegraph.  What  patents  can  cover. 
What  "art"  means  in  patent  law.  Infringement,  equiv- 
alents.    1  Fisher,  6i. 

Smith  v.  Elliott.  Elastic  fabrics.  Patents  are  liberally  con- 
strued. Want  of  novelty,  old  thing  to  new  use.  9  Blatch. 
400;  5  Fisher,  315;  1  Off.  Gaz.  331. 

Smith  r.  Ely.  Telegraph.  Expiration  of  foreign  patents. 
Patents  must  be  granted  according  to  law.  Pleas  in  bar. 
Oyer  of  patents.  Principle  cannot  be  patented.  5  Mc- 
Lean, 76,1 

Smith  v.  Ely.  Telegraph.  Same  questions  being  settled  in 
another  case,  this  was  sent  back  with  leave  to  amend.  15 
How.  137. 

Smith  v.  Fay  &  Co.     Mortising-machine.     Particular  patent. 

6  Fisher,  446. 

Smith  v.  Frayer.  Stone-crusher.  Patentability.  Notice  of 
prior  knowledge,  particularity  required.  5  Fisher,  543; 
2  Off.  Gaz.  175. 

Smith  v.  Glexdale  Elastic  Fabrics  Co.  Elastic  fabrics. 
Use  by  defendant  as  evidence  of  utility.  1  Holmes,  340; 
5  Off.  Gaz.  429. 

1  Opinion  not  delivered. 


112  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Smith  v.  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  Artificial 
gums,  &c.  Patentability  of  combinations.  Want  of  nov- 
elty. Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  3  Otto,  486;  11 
Off.  Gaz.  246. 

Smith  v.  Higgins.  Pai-ti-coloring  yarn.  Charge  to  jury. 
Construction  of  patents.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement, 
damages.     1  Fisher,  537. 

Smith  v.  Higgins.  Parti-coloring  yarn.  Infringement,  com- 
bination.    2  Fisher,  97. 

Smith  v.  Marshall.  Blackwashing-molds.  Infringement, 
mechanical  equivalents.     10  Off.  Gaz.  375. 

Smith  v.  McClelland.  Dental  plates.  State  courts  have  no 
jurisdiction  over  infringements.     11  Bush  (Ky.),  523. 

Smith  v.  Mercer.  Planing-machine.  Reissue  to  adminis- 
trator. Patents  signed  by  acting  commissioner.  Reissue 
not  for  same  invention.  Infringement,  substantial  identity. 
5  Penn.  L.  J.  529 ;  4  West.  L.  J.  49. 

Smith  v.  Nichols.  Weaving  fabric.  Want  of  novelty, 
greater  utility.  1  Holmes,  172;  6  Fisher,  61;  2  Off.  Gaz. 
649. 

Smith  v.  Nichols.  Weaving  fabric.  Disclaimers,  unreason- 
able delay.  Want  of  novelty,  prior  use.  Utility.  21 
Wall.  112. 

Smith  v.  O'Connor.  Water-closet  pan.  Patents  are  liberally 
construed.  Defective  specifications.  Want  of  novelty, 
two  years'  sale.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Dam- 
ages.    2  Sawyer,  461;  6  Fisher,  469;  4  Off.  Gaz.  633. 

Smith  v.  Patton.  Planing-machine.  Injunction,  equitable 
release  by  plaintiff.  Attachment  refused.  .  6  Penn.  L.  J. 
189. 

Smith  v.  Pearce.  Grinding  millstones.  Patentability,  mere 
alteration.  Infringement,  substantially  alike.  2  McLean, 
176;  2  Robb,  13. 

Smith  v.  Prior.  Water-closet  pan.  Patents  are  liberally 
construed.  Defective  specifications.  Want  of  novelty, 
two  years'  sale.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Dam- 
ages.    2  Sawyer,  461 ;  6  Fisher,  469. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  113 

Smith  v.  Rifle  Co.  Fire-arms.  Preliminary  injunctions. 
Defendant  manufacturing  for  English  government.  In- 
fringement admitted  and  offered  to  pay  reasonable  sum. 
Injunction  refused.     3  Blatch.  545. 

Smith  v.  Seldex.     Telegraph.     Contract.     1  Blatch.  475. 

Smith  t>.  Tracy.  Medicine.  One  practising  physic  without 
authority  of  law  cannot  recover  for  services  or  even  for 
patent  medicines  given.     2  Hall  (N.  Y.),  465. 

Smith  v.  Woodruff.  Paper-holder.  Patent  prima  facie 
valid.  If  no  infringement  between  two  patents,  there  is  no 
interference.  1  Mc Arthur,  459;  6  Fisher,  476;  4  Off.  Gaz. 
635. 

Snow  v.  Judsox.  Valves  for  governors.  Contract,  false  rep- 
resentations, State  court  has  jui-isdiction.  38  Barb.  (N.Y.) 
210. 

Snow  v.  Tapley.  Paper  collars.  Abandoned  experiments, 
prior  use.     13  Off.  Gaz.  548. 

Snow  v.  Taylor.  Paper  collars.  Patentability.  14  Off. 
Gaz.  861. 

SoNE  V.  Palmer.  Seed-planter.  Note,  consideration.  Non- 
suits must  be  voluntary.  Assignments,  recording.  Patent- 
office  clerk  as  witness.     28  Mo.  539. 

Spauldixg  y.  Duff.  Saws.  Damages,  full  amount  of  profits, 
no  fixed  royalties.     1  Sawyer,  702;  4  Fisher,  641. 

Spauldixg  v.  Page.  SawS.  Damages,  full  amount  of  profits, 
no  fixed  royalty.     1  Sawyer,  702;  4  Fisher,  G41. 

Spauldixg  v.  Tucker.  Saws.  Retaxing  costs,  printing 
testimony  not  included,  travelling  fees  for  witnesses  out  yf 
the  State.     Deady,  619;  4  Fi.sher,  633. 

Sprague  v.  Adriaxce.  Mowing-machine.  Abandonment  a 
fact,  not  conclusion  of  law,  intention.  Reissue  not  for 
same  invention.     Want  of  novelty.     14  Off.  Gaz.  308. 

Spring  v.  Howard.  Lathe,  irregular  forms.  Want  of 
novelty,  particular  patent.     7.0fE.  Gaz.  341. 

Spring    v.    Packard.      Lathe,    irregular   forms.       Want  of 
novelty,  particular  patent.     7  Off.  Gaz.  341. 
8 


114  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Squire,  John  L.,  In  re.  Interfering  patents,  original  not 
appellate  jurisdiction  of  circuit  courts.  Appointment  of 
special  examiners.     12  Off.  Gaz.  1025. 

Stainthorp  v.  Elkinton.  Candle-machine.  Original  in- 
ventor, abandoned  experiments.     1  Fisher,  349. 

Stainthorp  v.  Humiston.  Candle-machine.  Subsequent 
patent.     Want  of  novelty.     1  Fisher,  475. 

Stainthorp  v.  Humiston.  Candle-making.  Injunction  re- 
fused, valuable  improvements  by  defendant.     2  Fisher,  311. 

Stainthorp  v.  Humiston.  Candle-making.  Citizenship, 
evidence,  terms.     Want  of  novelty,  utility.     4  Fisher,  107. 

Stanley  v.  Whipple.  Stove.  Patentability,  utility.  Too 
broad  claims.  Books  of  parties  as  evidence.  Reissue  re- 
lates back  to  original.  Verdict  not  set  aside  if  evidence 
conflicts.     2  McLean,  35;  2  Robb,  1. 

Stanley  Rule  and  Level  Co.  v.  Bailey.  Bench-planes. 
Estoppel  to  dispute  novelty.  Agreement  broken  by  plain- 
tiff, effect  on  his  rights.  Infringement,  equivalents.  14 
Blatch.  510. 

Stanley  Works  v.  Sargent  &  Co.  Door-bolts.  Utility  as 
a  test  of  originality.     8  Blatch.  344;  4  Fisher,  443. 

State  v.  Brower.  Ohio  law  on  notes  for  patent-rights.  In- 
dictment must  show  that  note  was  negotiable.  30  Ohio  St. 
101. 

State  v.  Peck.  Cultivator.  Ohio  law  of  negotiable  notes 
for  patent-rights,  effect  and  extent.     25  Ohio  St.  26. 

Steam  Cutter  Co.  v.  Shelden.  Stone-channelling.  Con- 
tract. Right  to  make  and  right  to  use  distinguished. 
Abandoning  contract,  defendant  may  be  sued  as  infringer. 
10  Blatch.  1 ;  5  Fisher,  477. 

Steam  Packet  Co.     (See  Packet  Co.) 

Stearns  v.  Barrett.  Dyeing-machine.  Appellate  jurisdic- 
tion of  Circuit  Court.  Scire  facias.  Irregular  verdicts. 
1  Mason,  153;  1  Robb,  07. 

Stein  v.  Goddard.  Infringement  is  a  tort.  Assignees  join- 
ing as  plaintiffs.     1  McAllister,  82. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  115 

Stephens  v.  Felt.  Writing-fluid.  What  actual  damages 
are.     2  Blatch.  37. 

Stevens  v.  Head.  Cider-mill.  Note,  lack  of  title,  admis- 
sibility of  evidence.     9  Vt.  174. 

Stevens  v.  Pierpont.  Hay-cutters.  Violation  of  contract. 
Conclusions  of  fact  not  open  on  writ  of  error.  Identity  of 
two  machines.     42  Conu.  360. 

Stevens  v.  Pkitchard.  Boots  and  shoes.  Combinations. 
Reissues  are  presumed  valid.  Right  to  reissue,  introduc- 
tion of  new  features.     10  Off.  Gaz.  505. 

Stillwell  and  Bierce  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Cincinnati 
Gaslight  and  Coke  Co.  Filters.  Want  of  novelty, 
anticipation,  greater  utility.  Model  not  enough  to  antici- 
pate.    7  Off.  Gaz.  829. 

Stimpson  v.  Baltimore  and  Susquehanna  Railroad. 
Turning  short  curves.  Infringement,  combination,  must 
be  all  the  elements.  Writ  of  error  lies  against  decision 
on  agreed  state  of  facts.     10  How.  329. 

Stimpson  v.  Pond.  Penalfcy  for  use  of  word  "  patent "  on 
unpatented  articles.  Limitation  for  bringing  suits.  2 
Curtis,  502. 

Stimpson  v.  Rogers.  Ice-pitchers.  Patent  may  issue  to  ex- 
ecutor on  death  of  inventor.  Misjoinder  of  defendants. 
4  Blatch.  333. 

Stimpson  v.  The  Railroads.  Turning  short  curves.  Act- 
ual damages,  counsel  fees,  allowance  by  jury.  1  Wall.  Jr. 
164;  2Robb,  593. 

Stimpson  v.  West  Chester  Railroad.  Turning  short 
curves.  Practice,  excepting  generally  to  charge  of  court. 
Defects  remedied  by  reissue.     4  How.  380;  2  Robb,  335. 

Stimpson  v.  Woodman.  Ornamenting  leather.  Infringe- 
ment, combination,  smooth  roller  replaced  by  one  covered 
with  designs.     10  Wall.  117. 

Stone  v.  Edwards.  State  courts  have  no  jurisdiction  in 
infringement  suits.     35  Texas,  556. 


116  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

Stone  v.  Sprague.  Looms.  Construction  of  patents.  1 
Story,  270;  2  Robb,  10. 

Storks  v.  Howe.  Tailor's  pressing-machine.  Original  in- 
ventor, patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Infringement,  equiv- 
alents, combinations.     10  Oif.  Gaz.  421. 

Stove  Works.     (See  Detroit  Stove  Works.) 

Stover  v.  Halsted.  Planing-machine.  Utility.  Infringe- 
ment, want  of  novelty.     13  Blatch.  95;  8  Off.  Gaz.  558. 

Street  v.  Silver.  Writing-slate.  Note,  guaranty,  void  if 
not  original  inventor,  colorable  alterations.  Brightly 
(Penn.),  96. 

Strong  v.  Noble.  Whips.  Want  of  novelty,  old  thing  to 
new  use.     6  Blatch.  477;  3  Fisher,  586. 

Stuart  v.  Shantz.  Stoves.  Infringement,  license.  Utility 
shown  by  popularity.  6  Fisher,  35;  9  Phila.  376;  2  Off. 
Gaz.  524. 

Sturges  v.  Van  Hagen.  Punching  metal.  Decree.  4  Off. 
Gaz.  579;  6  Fisher,  572. 

Suffolk  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Hayden.  Cotton-cleaners. 
Dedication,  not  claiming  in  later  and  different  application. 
Rule  of  damages.     3  Wall.  315. 

Sugar  Refinery.     (See  Union  Sugar  Refinery.) 
SuLLiNGS  V.  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.     Artificial 
gums,  &c.     Contract,  breach  by  suing  out  injunction.    Pen- 
dency of  other  suit.     36  Mich.  313. 

Sullivan  i;.  Redfield.  Towing-boats.  Fact  of  original  in- 
ventor must  be  sworn  to  in  bill.  Equity  jurisdiction  in 
patents.  Certainty  in  specification,  acquiescence  and  enjoy- 
ment.    1  Paine,  441;  1  Robb,  477. 

SuYDAM  V.  Day.  India-rubber.  Assignments  and  rights  of 
assignee.     2  Blatch.  20. 

Swain  Turbine  Co.  v.  Ladd.  Water-wheel.  Function  is  not 
patentable.     11  Off.  Gaz.  153. 

SwEETZER  V.  Helms.  Burnisher.  Infringement.  10  Off. 
Gaz.  4. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  117 

Swift  v.  Whisex.  Flour-separater.  Charge  to  jury.  Want 
of  novelty.  Reissues  may  be  to  assignee  of  assignee.  Join- 
ing patentee  not  necessary.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention. 
Fraud.  Uncertainty  in  specification.  Infringement,  com- 
parison of  the  two  machines.     2  Bond,  115;.  3  Fisher,  343. 

Sykes  v.  Manhattan  Elevator  and  Grain  Drying  Co. 
Grain-dryer.  Preliminary  injunctions,  unsatisfactory  evi- 
dence.    6  Blatch.  496. 

T. 

Tape  Skirt  Co.     (See  Woven  Tape  Skirt  Co.) 

Tappan  v.  National  Bank  Note  Co.  Perforating-machine. 
Question  of  abandonment  and  public  use  reserved  for  final 
hearing.     Acquiescence.     4  Blatch.  509;  2  Fisher,  195. 

Tarr  v.  Folsom.  Marine  paint.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion.    Want  of  novelty.     1  Holmes,  313;  5  Off.  Gaz.  92. 

Tarr  v.  Webb.  Marine  paint.  Want  of  novelty.  Reissue  not 
for  same  invention.  10  Blatch.  96;  5  Fisher,  593;  2  Off. 
Gaz.  568. 

Tatham  v.  Leroy.  Lead-pipe  machine.  Identity,  rule  of 
law.  Infringement,  change  of  form,  mechanical  equivalents. 
Rule  of  damages.     2  Blatch.  474. 

Tatham  v.  Loring.  Tube-making.  Rights  of  assignees  are 
only  such  as  inventors  have.     5  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  207. 

Tatham  v.  Lowber.  Lead-pipe  machine.  Assignments  from 
alien  patentees.     2  Blatch.  49. 

Taylor  v.  Archer.  Glue  for  flexible  tubing.  Want  of  nov- 
elty, foreign  patents.  Disclaimer  during  suit.  Infringe- 
ment, equivalents.     8  Blatch.  315;  4  Fisher,  449. 

Taylor  v.  Collins.  Looms.  Interpretation  of  agreement. 
102  Mass.  248. 

Taylor  v.  Garretson.  Mop-head.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention. Want  of  novelty.  Con.struction  of  patents.  In- 
fringement, mechanical  equivalents,  change  of  form.  9 
Blatch.  156;  5  Fisher,  116. 


118  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Tatlor  v.  Wood.  Exercise  apparatus.  Infringement,  par- 
ticular patent.     12  Blatch.  110;  8  Off.  Gaz.  90. 

Teese  v.  Huntingdon.  Sluice-fork.  General  issue,  special 
notice,  thirty  days.  Damages,  counsel  fees.  Credibility  of 
witnesses,  how  settled.     23  How.  2. 

Teese  v.  Phelps.  General  demurrer,  allegation  of  residence 
of  parties.  Rules  of  court.  Patentability  is  mixed  ques- 
tion of  law  and  fact.     1  McAllister,  17. 

Teese  v.  Phelps.  Construction  of  patents.  Patent  prima 
facie  evidence  of  novelty.  Infringement,  change  of  form, 
inventive  skill.     1  McAllister,  48. 

Thatcher  Heating  Co.  i>.  Carbon  Stove  Co.  Air-heating 
furnaces.  General  allegation  of  infringement  is  enough. 
Patentability,  novelty.     15  Off.  Gaz.  1051. 

Thayer  v.  Wales.  Candle-making.  Infringement,  want  of 
novelty.     9  Blatch.    170;  5  Fisher,  130. 

Thayer  v.  Wales.  Candle-making.  Appearance  and  plea  by 
attorney  admits  jurisdiction.     5  Fisher,  448. 

Thomas  w.  Quintard.  Sperm-oil.  Sale  of  patent.  Purchaser 
having  re-sold  is  estopped  to  dispute  validity.  5  Duer  (N. 
Y.),  80. 

Thomas  v.  Weeks.  Bilge-levers.  Preliminary  injunctions, 
exclusive  possession.  Original  inventor,  suggestions.  2 
Paine,  92. 

Thompson  v.  Haight.  Making  carpets.  What  invention  is. 
Novelty,  utility.  History  of  patent  laws.  1  U.  S.  L.  J. 
563. 

Thompson  v.  Jacobs.  Corsets.  Patentability.  Decree.  12 
Off.  Gaz.  890. 

Thompson  v.  Mendelsohn.  Caustic  alkalies.  Patent  suit 
may  be  brought  wherever  defendant  is  found.  5  Fisher, 
187. 

Thompson  v.  Staats.  Medicine.  Owning  a  patent  medicine 
is  no  excuse  for  practising  medicine  without  authority.  15 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  395. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  119 

Thompson   and   The   Pennsylvania   Salt   Co.   v.  Barry. 

Assignment  after  preliminary  injunction  no  ground  for  dis- 
solving it.     2  Weekly  Notes,  100. 

TiLGHMAN  V.  Kartell.  Sand-blast.  Jurisdiction,  pleading. 
License.     9  Off.  Gaz.  886. 

Tilghman  v.  jMitchell.  Purifying  fats.  Infi'ingement,  pro- 
cess.    2  Fisher,  518. 

Tilghman  v.  Mitchell.  Purifying  fats.  Master's  report, 
specification  is  addressed  to  those  skilled  m  the  art.  Gains 
and  profits.     9  Blatch.  1 ;  4  Fisher,  599. 

Tilghman  v.  Mitchell.  Purifying  fats.  Preliminary  injunc- 
tions. Want  of  novelty.  Expiration  of  foreign  patents 
before  extension.  Infringement.  9  Blatch.  18;  4  Fisher, 
615. 

Tilghman  v.  Morse.  Stone-cutting.  Preliminary  injunction, 
want  of  novelty.  Process  or  art.  9  Blatch.  421 ;  5  Fisher, 
323;  1  Off.  Gaz.  574. 

Tilghman  v.  Werk.  Purifying  fats.  Original  inventor, 
utility.  Clearness  in  specification.  Principle  not  patent- 
able. Infringement,  process,  only  part.  1  Bond,  511;  2 
Fisher,  229. 

TiLLOTSON  V.  MuNSON.  .  Filter-vrcU.  Want  of  novelty.  Orig- 
inal inventor.  Infringement,  performing  same  function.  5 
Bissell,  426. 

ToMLiNSON  V.  Battel.  Ambrotypes.  State  courts  no  jurisdic- 
tion where  validity  of  patents  is  involved.  4  Abb.  (N.  Y.) 
266. 

Tompkins  v.  Gage.  Knitting-machine.  Tautolo^cal  claims. 
Original  inventor,  burden  of  proof.  Infringement,  mechan- 
ical equivalent.     5  Blatch.  269;  2  Fisher,  577. 

Tool  Co.     (See  Middletown  Tool  Co.) 

Tracy  v.  Torrey.  Cultivators.  Preliminary  injunctions. 
Infringement,  same  principle  carried  farther.  2  Blatch. 
275. 

Trader  v.  Messmore.  Seed-planters.  Strict  construction  of 
patents.     Patentee's  construction.     7  Off.  Gaz.  385. 


120  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Treadwell  v.  Bladen.  Biscuit-finisher.  Original  inventor, 
fbrm  distinguished  from  principle.  Prior  knowledge. 
Prior  patent  for  same  invention.  4  Wash.  703;  1  Robb, 
531. 

Treadwell  v.  Parrott.  Cannon-making.  Practicability, 
original  inventor,  state  of  the  art.  5  Blatch.  370;  3  Fisher, 
124. 

Tremaine  v.  Hitchcock.  Tremolo  attachment.  Amend- 
ment of  bills.     7  Off.  Gaz.  1055. 

Tremolo  Patent.  Tremolo  attachment.  Amendments  after 
final  decree.     Profits,  &c.     23  How.  518. 

Troy  Iron  and  Nail  Factory  v.  Corning.  Nail  machin- 
ery. Original  inventor.  Plaintiff  bound  by  agreement. 
1  Blatch.  467;  6  Fisher,  85. 

Troy  Iron  and  Nail  Factory  v.  Corning.  Nail  machin- 
ery. Master's  report.  Practice,  exceptions  to  ruling  must 
be  made  at  the  time.  Profits,  admission  of  defendants. 
6  Blatch.  328;  3  Fisher,  497. 

Troy  Iron  and  Nail  Factory  v.  Corning.     Nail  machinery. 

Construction  of  particular  agreement.     Form  of  licenses, 

&c.     14  How.  193. 
Troy  Iron  and  Nail  Factory  v.  Odiorne.    Nail  machinery. 

Date  of  particular  machine.     17  How.  72. 

Troy  Iron  and  Nail  Factory  ik  Winslow.  Nail  machinery. 
Bills  of  revivor.  Profits.  Partnership  suit  does  not  abate 
by  death  of  partner.  Cannot  sue  representatives  of  de- 
ceased partner  unless  firm  is  insolvent.     11  Blatch.  513. 

Truck  Co.*    (See  Locomotive  Engine  Safety  Truck  Co.) 

Tryon  v.  White.  Comb-machine.  Nonsuit  for  variance. 
1  Peters,  C.  C.  96;  1  Robb,  64. 

Tuck  v.  Bramhill.  Packing  for  boxes.  Want  of  novelty. 
When  disclaimers  must  be  filed.  Proper  disclaimers.  6 
Blatch.  95;  3  Fisher,  400. 

Tucker  v.  Spaulding.  Saw-teeth.  Identity  is  for  jury. 
Rejection  of  evidence.  13  Wall.  453;  5  Fisher,  297 ;  1  0£E. 
Gaz.  144. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  121 

I'ucKER  V.  TucKKR  Manufactuking  Co.  Broiizing  iron. 
Power  of  Coinniissioner.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention. 
Reissues  in  general.     Infringement.     10  Oif.  Gaz.  464. 

Tufts  i;.  Boston  Manufacturing  Co.  Hoisting-apparatus. 
Want  of  novelty,  particular  patent.  1  Holmes,  459;  8 
Off.  Gaz.  239. 

Turbine  Co.     (See  Swain  Turbine  Co.) 

TuRNBULL  V.  Weir  Plow  Co.  Cultivators.  Recording  as- 
signments. Bona  fide  purchasers.  6  Bissell,  225;  7  Off. 
Gaz.  173. 

Turner  v.  Green.  Patentee  of  improvement  cannot  after- 
wards pettent  the  whole  machine.     2  Cranch,  C.  C.  287. 

Turrell  0.  Cammerrer.  Beer-coolers.  General  allegation 
of  infringement  is  enough.     3  Fisher,  462. 

Turrell  v.  Spaeth.  Skates.  Compelling  production  of 
books.     8  Off.  Gaz.  986. 

Turrell  v.  Spaeth.  Skates.  Bills  to  restrain  infringement 
quia  timet.  'New  bill  for  infringements  since  old  one.  9 
Off.  Gaz.  1163. 

Turrell  v.  Spaeth.  Skates.  Original  inventor.  Infringe- 
ment, combination,  known  equivalents.  Reissue  not  for 
same  invention.     14  Off.  Gaz.  377. 

TuRRiLL  V.  Illinois  Central  Railroad.  Railroad-bars. 
Prior  construction  of  patents.  Want  of  novelty.  Utility. 
3  BisseU,  66 ;  3  Fisher,  330. 

Turrill  v.  Illinois  Central  Railroad.  Anvil.  Particu- 
lar patent.     3  Bissell,  72. 

Turrill  v.  Illinois  Central  Railroad.  Anvil.  Con- 
struction of  patents  by  Supreme  Court.  Damages.  Master 
simply  applies  principles  laid  down  by  court.  Profits.  5 
Bissell,  344. 

Turrill  v.  Michigan  Southern  and  Northern  Indiana 
Railroad.  Anvil.  Patents  are  not  monopolies,  but  are 
liberally  construed.     Decree  reversed.     1  Wall.  491. 

Twist  Drill  Co.     (See  Morse  Twist  Drill  Co.) 


122  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Tyler  v.  Boston.     Oil.     Clearness  in  specification.       What 
"  equivalent  "  means.     7  Wall.  327. 

Tylek  v.  Devel.     What  invention  is.     1  Am.  L.  J.  (8  Penn. 
L.  J.)  248. 

Tyler  v.  Hyde.     Cotton-presses.      Pleas  in  bar,  prior  judg- 
ment must  be  direct  on  validity.     2  Blatch.  308. 

Tyler  v.  Tuel.     Grist-mill.     Assignee  of   part  only  cannot 
sue.     6  Cranch,  324;  1  Robb,  14. 


u. 

Union  Manufacturing    Co.   v.    Lounsbury.      Carding-ma- 

chine.     Impracticability.     2  Fisher,  389. 

Union  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Lounsbury.  Felting  ma- 
chinery. Violation  of  agreement,  royalty.  Patent  being 
extended  by  Congress  does  not  prevent  royalty  being  due. 
41  N.  Y.  363. 

Union  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Lounsbury.  Felting  ma- 
chinery. Effect  of  agreement  on  extension.  42  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  125. 

Union  Metallic  Cartridge  Co.  v.  United  States  Car- 
tridge Co.  Cartridge-heads.  Infringement,  equivalents. 
Purchaser  may  repair.     11  Off.  Gaz.  1113. 

Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Binney.  Paper  bags. 
Preliminary  injunctions,  when  granted,  concealment  by  de- 
fendant. Infringement  by  less  perfect  machine.  5  Fisher, 
166. 

Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Crane.  Paper  bags. 
Decision  of  Patent  Office  on  interference,  not  conclusive. 
Date  of  invention,  estoppel  by  previous  statement.  1 
Holmes,  429;  6  Off.  Gaz.  801. 

Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Murphy.  Paper  bags. 
Original  inventor.  Want  of  novelty.  Patents  for  parts. 
Infringement,  change  of  form,  when  essential.  7  Otto, 
120;  13  Off.  Gaz.  366. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  123 

Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Newell.  Paper  bags. 
Repeal  of  act  of  1836  does  not  affect  patents  gi-anted  under 
it.     11  Blatch.  379;  6  Fisher,  582;  5  Off.  Gaz.  459. 

Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Xewell.  Paper  bags. 
Defenses  not  proved  cannot  be  set  up  on  motion  to  dissolve 
injunction.     11  Blatch.  549;  5  Off.  Gaz.  173. 

Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Nixon.  Paper  bags. 
Particular  patent.  Defective  specifications.  Opinions  of 
other  courts.     6  Fisher,  402;  4  Off.  Gaz.  31. 

Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Nixon.  Paper  bags.  In- 
terpretation of  license.  Patents  are  liberally  construed. 
9  Off.  Gaz.  691. 

Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Pultz  and  Walkley 
Co.  Paper  bags.  Admissibility  of  evidence,  rejected  appli- 
cations of  third  party.  Abandoned  experiments.  Original 
inventor,  patent  surreptitiously  obtained.  Infringement, 
substance  of  inventions  the  same.    15  Off.  Gaz.  423. 

Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  v.  Leland.  Paper  collars.  Reissue 
not  for  same  invention.  Want  of  novelty.  1  Holmes,  427; 
7  Off.  Gaz.  221. 

Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  v.  Van  Deusen.  Paper  collars. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Want  of  novelty,  10 
Blatch.  109;  5  Fisher,  597;  2  Off.  Gaz.  361. 

Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  v.  Van  Deusen.  Paper  coDars. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Parol  testimony  in  re- 
issuing. Original  inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence 
only.     Clearness  in  specification.     23  Wall.  530. 

Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  v.  White.  Paper  collars.  Original 
inventor.  Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Purpose  of 
reissues.  Infringement,  "  characteristic  resemblance."  7 
Off.  Gaz.  698;  s.  c.  p.  877.     34  Leg.  Int.  143. 

Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthieson.  Purifying  sugar. 
Practice,  Master  should  hand  in  a  report,  not  file  papers  on 
the  docket.  Sudden  changes  of  practice  not  desirable. 
Filing  papers  without  leave  of  court.     3  Cliff.  146. 


124  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthieson.  Purifying  sugar. 
Patentable  combinations.  Patents  not  monopolies.  Orig- 
inal inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Nature  of  in- 
fi-ingement.  Notice  under  general  issue.  Witnesses  are 
presumed  to  speak  the  truth.  Want  of  novelty,  foreign 
patents.     3  Cliff.  639;  2  Fisher,  600. 

United  Nickel  Co.  v.  Anthes.  Electro-deposition  of  nickel. 
Original  inventor,  abandoned  experiments.  1  Holmes,  155; 
5  Fisher,  517;  1  Off.  Gaz.  578. 

United  Nickel  Co.    v.  Keith.     Electro-deposition  of  nickel. 

Original  inventor,  state  of  the  art.     1  Holmes,  328;  5  Off. 

Gaz.  272. 
United  States  t7.  Burns.     Tent.     Statutes  about  contracts  of 

government  with  military  officers  for  supplies  do  not  apply 

to  patents.     12  Wall.  246. 

United  States  ex  rel.  West  v.  Doughty.  Skirts.  Bill  to 
vacate  patent  must  appear  to  be  by  District  Attorney.  7 
Blatch.  424. 

United  States  v.  Morris.  Penalty  for  putting  VFord  "  pat- 
ent "  on  unpatented  articles.     2  Bond,  33;  3  Fisher,  72. 

United  States  v.  Thacher.  Boots  and  shoes.  Povrer  of 
Commissioner.  Mandamus.  Interfering  patents.  2  Mc- 
Arthur,  24;  7  Off.  Gaz.  603. 

United  States  Annunciator  Co.  v.  Sanderson.  Bell  tele- 
graph. Opinions  of  experts.  Preliminary  injunctions. 
Bonajide  purchasers.     3  Blatch.  184. 

United  States  and  Foreigx  Salamander  Felting  Co.  v. 
Asbestos  Felting  Co.  Cover  for  steam-boilers.  Want  of 
novelty.     10  Off.  Gaz.  828. 

United  States  and  Foreign  Salamander  Felting  Co.  v. 
Haven.  Cover  for  steam-boilers.  Want  of  notice.  Court 
cannot  notice  defenses  not  set  up.  Reissue  not  for  same 
invention.     3  Dillon,  131;  9  Off.  Gaz.  253. 

United  States  and  Foreign  Salamander  Felting  Co.  v. 
Lawrence  Manufacturing  Co.  Cover  for  steam-boil- 
ers. Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  composition.  9  Off. 
Gaz.  202. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  125 

United  States  and  Foreign  Salamander  Felting  Co.  r. 
Merrimack  Manufacturing  Co.  Cover  for  steam-boil- 
ers. Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  composition.  9  Off. 
Gaz.  202. 

United  States  Gauge  Co.  v.  American  Gauge  Co.  Steam- 
gauge.  Prior  patents.  Infringement,  state  of  art.  1 
Holmes,  309;  5  OfE.  Gaz.  208. 

United  States  Rifle  and  Cartridge  Co.  v.  Whitney  Arms 
Co.  Fire-arms.  Rejecting  patents,  laches.  Abandonment, 
weight  of  Commissioner's  decision,  experimental  use.  14 
Blatch.  94;  11  Off.  Gaz.  373. 


V. 


Vale  v.  Butler.  Rotary  ovens.  Admissibility  of  evidence. 
Ill  Ma.ss.  55. 

Vance  v.  Campbell.  Cooking-stoves.  Charge  to  jury.  Utility, 
patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Infringement.  1  Fisher, 
483. 

Vance  v.  Campbell.  Cooking-stoves.  Combination  must  be 
treated  as  an  entirety.     Above  reversed.     1  Black,  427. 

Van  Hook  v.  Pendleton.  Planing-machine.  Preliminary 
injunctions,  validity  already  established,  infi'ingement. 
Feigned  issues.     1  Blatch.  187. 

Vannini  v.  Paine.  Lotteries.  Jurisdiction  of  State  courts. 
Patent  lottery  cannot  be  used  in  States  where  lotteries  are 
illegal.     1  Harr.  (Del.)  65. 

Van  Ostrand  v.  Reed.  Threshing-machine.  Sale  of  patent, 
■worthless  machine,  false  representations.  When  note  is 
equivalent  to  payment.     1  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  424. 

Vaugiian  v.  Central  Pacific  Railroad.  Cars.  Injunction 
will  not  issue  after  patent  has  expired.  Remedies  for  in- 
fringement. Remedy  at  law.  Bills  of  discovery.  Profits. 
Infringement,  colorable  alterations.     4  Sa'^yer,  280. 


126  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Vaughan  v.  East  Tennessee,  Virginia,  and  Georgia 
Railroad.  Patent  balance.  Damages  without  injunc- 
tion. Acts  of  limitation.  Profits,  bill  of  discovery.  Con- 
struction of  statute.     11  Off.  Gaz.  789. 

Vaughan  v.  Porter.  Balance.  Time  to  request  court  to 
charge  the  jury.     Contract.     16  Vt.  266. 

Ventilating  Co.  (See  Lyman  Ventilating  and  Refrig- 
erator Co.) 

Vetter  v.  Leutzinger.  Window-shades.  Patent  refused  to 
firm,  but  granted  to  one  partner,  belongs  to  firm.  31  Iowa, 
182. 

VoGLER  V.  Semple.  Trunks.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion. Reissues.  Infringement,  equivalents.  7  Bissell, 
382;  11  Off.  Gaz.  923. 

VosE  V.  Singer.  Sewing-machine.  Joint  owners  cannot  sue 
each  other  for  profits  without  special  agreement.  4  Allen, 
(Mass.)  226. 


w. 

Wadding  Co.     (See  Fuzzard  Wadding  Co.) 

Walker  v.  Hawxhurst,  Penalty  for  putting  word  "  patent " 
on  unpatented  articles.     Intent  to  deceive.     5  Blatch.  494. 

Wallace  v.  Holmes.  Lamps.  Sole  title.  Defenses  must 
be  set  up  to  be  used.  Infringement,  combination,  making 
some  parts  in  concert  with  another  making  the  rest.  9 
Blatch.  65;  5  Fisher,  37;  1  Off.  Gaz.  117. 

Walter  A.  Wood  Mowing  and  Reaping  Machine  Co.  v. 
Caldwell.  Mowers  and  reapers.  Indiana  law  of  foreign 
coi-porations.  Sale  of  patented  articles.  Pleading,  abate- 
ment, denmrrer.     54  Ind.  270. 

Warren  v.  Cole.  Soap-making.  Contract,  fraud,  repudia- 
tion.    Damages  in  actions  of  tort.     15  Mich.  265. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  127 

Washburn  v.  Gould.  Plani tig-machine.  Extensions  to 
administrators.  Who  is  entitled  to  patent.  Drawings  not 
referred  to  in  specification.  New  trial,  surprise,  reason- 
able diligence.  Written  instruments,  technical  words.  3 
Story,  122;  2  Robb,  206. 

Washing  Co.  (See  Bailet  Washing  Co.;  Metropoli- 
tan Washing  Machine  Co.) 

Watkrbury  Brass  Co.  v.  Miller.  Brass  kettles.  Patent 
prima  facie  evidence  of  utility,  novelty,  &c.  Machines  are 
generally  combinations.  Infringement,  substantially  as 
described.     9  Blatch.  77;  5  Fisher,  48. 

Waterbury  Brass  Co.  v.  New  York  and  Brooklyn 
Brass  Co.  Brass  kettles.  Charge  to  jury.  Infringe- 
ment, any  claim  of  patent.  Patents  are  liberally  construed. 
Want  of  novelty,  patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Proper 
testimony,  experts.     3  Fisher,  43. 

Waterman  r.  Thompson.  Tempering  steel.  Charge  to  jury. 
Original  inventor,  patent /*)-inja  facie  evidence,  prior  inven- 
tion must  be  useful.     2  Fisher,  461. 

Waterman  v.  Wallace.  Tempering  steel.  Interpretation 
of  assignments.     13  Blatch.  129. 

Water-Wheel  Co.     (See  Swain  Turbine  Co.) 

Watson  v.  Bladen.  Biscuit-finisher.  Original  inventor. 
Inventors  of  improvements.  Prior  use.  4  Wash.  580;  1 
Robb,  510. 

W^ATSON  I'.  Cunningham.  Fruit-jars.  Patentability  of  com- 
binations.    4  Fisher,  528. 

Wayne  v.  Holmes.  Wash-boards.  Uncertainty  in  specifica- 
tion, object  of  statute  provision.  Original  inventor. 
Want  of  novelty.     Utility.     1  Bond,  27 ;  2  Fisher,  20. 

Wayne  v.  Winter.  Washing-machine.  Date  of  application 
cannot  be  proved  by  parol.     6  McLean,  344. 

Webb  i'.  Quintard.  Defensive  armor  for  ships.  Want  of 
novelty,  printed  publications.  9  Blatch.  352;  5  Fisher, 
276;  1  Off.  Gaz.  525. 


128  PATENT   CASE   INDEX. 

Webster  v.  New  Brunswick  Carpet  Co.  Looms.  Infringe- 
ment, combination.  Expert  testimony.  Want  of  novelty. 
5  Oft-.  Gaz.  522. 

Webster  v.  New  Brunswick  Carpet  Co.  Looms.  Ex- 
ceptions to  Master's  report.     9  Oif.  Gaz.  203. 

Webster  Loom  Co.  v.  Higgins.  Looms.  Motion  to  amend 
answer.     Laches.     13  Blatch.  3i9 ;  9  Off.  Gaz.  965. 

Webster  Loom  Co.  v.  Short.  Looms.  Cross-bill  without 
notice  must  be  struck  from  files.     10  Off.  Gaz.  1019. 

Weed  v.  Draper.  Sole-cutter.  Contract,  damages.  99  Mass.  53. 

Weed  v.  Draper.  Sole-cutter.  Contract,  damages.  104 
Mass.  28. 

Welling  v.  Rubber  Coated  Harness  Trimming  Co. 
Martingale  rings.  Construction  of  patents,  fair  interpre- 
tation of  words.  Infringement,  well-known  substitute.  7 
Off.  Gaz.  606. 

Welling  v.  Rubber  Coated  Harness  Trimming  Co.  Mar- 
tingale rings.  Contempt,  violation  of  injunction.  7  Off. 
Gaz.  608. 

Wells  v.  Gill.  Hat-machine.  Preliminary  injunction, 
appeal  to  discretion,  previous  decisions,  writ  of  error  pend- 
ing. Decision  of  Commissioner.  Reissue  not  for  same 
invention.     6  Fisher,  89 ;  2  Off.  Gaz.  590. 

Wells  v.  Gill.  Hat-machine.  Reissue  not  for  same  inven- 
tion.    6  Fisher,  574;  4  Off.  Gaz.  669. 

Wells  v.  Hagaman.  Hat-machine.  Infringement,  particu- 
lar patent.     29  Leg.  Int.  405. 

Wells  v.  Jacques.  Hat-machine.  Preliminary  injunctions, 
questions  of  fact  not  easily  settled  on  such  motions.  5 
Fisher,  136. 

Wells  v.  Jacques.  Hat-machine.  Patentee's  rights.  Con- 
struction of  patents.  Priority  of  defendants.  Infringe- 
ment, combination.     5  Off.  Gaz.  364. 

Wells  ?'.  Yates.  Hat-machine.  Preliminary  injunctions, 
appeal  to  discretion.  Previous  decisions.  Writ  of  error 
pending.  Decision  of  Commissioner.  Reissue  not  for 
same  invention.     2  Off.  Gaz.  590. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  129 

Wernek  v.  Kixg.  Fluting-machine.  Infringement,  mechani- 
cal equivalents,  marked  difference.  6  Otto,  218;  13  Off. 
Gaz.  176. 

West  v.  Morrison.  Nail-machine.  Contract,  worthless 
patent  no  ground  for  rescission.     2  Bibb  (Ky.),  376. 

West  v..  Silver  Wire  and  Skirt  Manufacturing  Co. 
Ladies'  bustles.  Infringement,  particular  patent.  5 
Blatch.  477;  3  Fisher,  306. 

Western  Telegraph  Co.  v.  Magnetic  Telegraph  Co. 
Telegraph.  If  no  infi'ingement  and  no  violation  of  con- 
tract, no  legal  remedy.     21  How.  456. 

Western  Telegraph  Co.  v.  Penniman.  Telegraph.  Above 
affirmed.     21  IIow.  4G0. 

Westinghouse  v.  Gardner  and  Ransom  Air  Brake  Co. 
Air-brakes.  Purpose  of  reissues.  "  Substantially  as  de- 
scribed" is  implied.  Original  inventor,  want  of  novelty. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Ambiguity.  Patent- 
ability.    9  Off.  Gaz.  538. 

Westlake  v.  Cartter.  Truss-bridges.  Sufficiency  of  notice 
of  defen.se.  Evidence  of  state  of  art.  Utility.  Want  of 
novelty.  Infringement,  combination.  6  Fisher,  519;  4 
Off.  Gaz.  636. 

Weston  v.  Nash.  Draining  sugar.  Foreign  patents.  In- 
fringement, change  of  form.  1  Holmes,  488 ;  7  Off.  Gaz. 
1096. 

Weston  v.  White.  Differential  pulley-blocks.  Expiration  of 
foreign  patents.     13  Blatch.  364;  9  Off.  Gaz.  1196. 

Weston  v.  White.  Differential  pulley-blocks.  Preliminary 
injunctions,  prior  suit  at  law  not  required.  Abandonment, 
public  and  common  use.     13  Blatch.  447. 

Wetherill  i^.  New  Jersey  Zinc  Co.  Zinc-making.  Con- 
tempt, violation  of  injunction,  attempt  to  invade.  5  Off. 
Gaz.  460. 

Wetherill  v.  Passaic  Zinc  Co.  Zinc-making.  Interpreta- 
tion of  agreement,  right  to  use,  &c.  6  Fisher,  50;  9  Phila. 
385;  2  Off.  Gaz.  471. 

9 


130  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Wheeleu  v.  Billings.  Stone-dressing  machine.  Assign- 
ment, consideration,  parol  evidence  to  vary.  Exceptions  to 
court's  rulings.     38  N.  Y.  2GJ. 

Wheeler  v.  Clipper  Mower  and  Reaper  Co.  Reaper. 
Practicability.  Reissue  not  for  .same  invention.  Want  of 
novelty.  Infringement,  taking  each  part  separately.  10 
Blatch.  181;  6  Fisher,  1;  2  Off.  Gaz.  442. 

Wheeler  v.  McCormick.  Harvester.  Pleading,  pendency  of 
other  suit.  Irregular  to  file  two  pleas  without  special  leave 
of  court.     Jurisdiction.     8  Blatch.  267;  4  Fisher,  433. 

Wheeler  v.  McCormick.  Harvester.  Non-joinder  of  parties. 
Piior  decisions.  Several  reissues  of  one  patent  for  its  sev- 
eral parts.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement  clear.  11 
Blatch.  334;  6  Fisher,  551;  4  Off.  Gaz.  692. 

Wheeler  v.  Simpson.  Saws.  Result  not  patentable.  In- 
fringement, combination.     6  Off.  Gaz.  435. 

Whip  Co.     (See  American  Whip  Co.) 

Whipple  v.  Baldwin  Manufacturing  Co.  Cotton-gin. 
Original  inventor,  patent  prima  facie  evidence.  Construc- 
tion of  patents.     4  Fisher,  29. 

Whipple  v.  Hutchinson.  Iron  bridges.  Contempt,  violation 
of  injunction.     What  is  open  and  what  not.    4  Blatch.  190. 

Whipple  i'.  Middlesex  Company.  Cotton-gin.  Construction 
of  patents.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  mechanical 
changes,  same  result.     4  Fisher,  41. 

White??.  Allen.  Fire-arms.  Original  inventor,  patent  ^jn'/na 
facie  evidence.  What  "  first  inventor  "  is.  Patentability. 
Abandonment.  Want  of  novelty,  foreign  patents,  trans- 
lation.    2  Cliff.  224;  2  Fisher,  440. 

White  v.  Boker.  Fire-arms.  Infringement,  particular  pat- 
ent.    3  Fisher,  66. 

Whitehead  v.  Kitson.  Cotton-openers.  State  jurisdiction 
in  patent  suits.     119  Mass.  484. 

Whitely  v.  Fisher.  Plows.  Reissues,  expiration,  antedating. 
Res  adjudicalce.     Powers  of  Commissioners.    4  Fisher,  248. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  131 

Whitely  v.  Kirby.  Harvester.  Want  of  novelty.  Infiinge- 
ment,  colorable  alterations.     11  Wall.  678. 

Whitely  v.  Swayxe.  Harvester.  Acts  of  public  officer,  rec- 
ord showing  disregard  of  rules.  Oath  of  assignee  to  reissue 
in  lifetime  of  patentee.  Keissue  not  for  same  invention, 
fraud  on  Patent  Office.     4  Fisher,  117. 

Whitely  v.  Swayxe.  Harvester.  Abandoned  experiments, 
first  inventor.     7  Wall.  685. 

WniTixG  V.  Graves.  Sawing  machine.  Inventions  by  em- 
ploye. Equitable  titles.  Contract  as  a  license.  13  Off. 
Gaz.  455. 

Whitxey  v.  Emmett.  Glass  knobs.  What  "  useful  "  means. 
Prior  knowledge  and  use.  Uncertainty  in  specification. 
Excessive  damages.     1  Baldwin,  303;  1  Robb,  567. 

Whitxey  v.  Mowry.  Car-wheels.  Presumption  of  novelty 
strengthened  by  extension.  Want  of  novelty,  state  of  art. 
Infringement,  substantial  identity.  Suspension  of  decree 
till  Master  reports.     2  Bond,  45;  3  Fisher,  157. 

Whitney  v.  Mowry.  Car-wheels.  Master's  report,  profits  and 
damages.     4  Fisher,  111. 

Whitxey  v.  ^Iowry.  Car-wheels.  Master's  report,  evidence. 
Profits,  &c.     Fraud  not  open  collaterally.     4  Fisher,  207. 

Whitxey  v.  Kollstoxe  Machine  Works.  Lathes,  irregu- 
lar forms.  Preliminary  injunctions.  Prior  patent  expired. 
8  Off.  Gaz.  908. 

Whittemore  v.  Cutter.  Wool-card  machine.  Right  to  sue, 
assignee  of  half,  joint  action.  Infringement,  making  to 
use,  but  not  using.  Irregular  oath  of  plaintiff.  Clearness 
in  specification.  Damages,  counsel  fees,  &c.  1  Gall.  429; 
1  Robb,  28. 

Whittemore  v.  Cutter.  Wool-card  machine.  Inventors  of 
part  only.  What  identity  is.  Dedication.  Actual  dam- 
ages.    1  Gall.  478;  1  Robb,  40. 

WiCKE  V.  Kleixknecht.  Box-nailing  machine.  Territorial 
license  to  use.     Used  outside.     7  Off.  Gaz.  1098. 


132  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

WiCKS  V.  Stevens.  Cotton-presses.  Reissue  not  for  same  in- 
vention.    2  Woods,  310. 

Wilbur  v.  Beecher.  Bark-mill.  Charge  to  jury.  Clearness 
in  specification.  Degree  of  utility  required.  Infringement, 
change  of  shape.     Damages.     2  Blatch.  132. 

Wilcox  v.  Komp.  Hoop-skirts.  Infringement  clear.  Original 
inventor.     7  Blatch.  126. 

Wilder  v.  Adams.  Safe.  Covenant,  consideration,  defenses 
allowed.  Fraud.  No  profits  from  patent.  Proper  remedy 
is  on  the  covenant.     2  W.  &  M.  329. 

Wilder  v.  Gaylor.  Fire-proof  safe.  Notice  under  general 
issue.     Special  pleas.     1  Blatch.  597. 

Wilder  v.  McCormick.  Fire-proof  safe.  Demurrers  in  gen- 
eral.    Technical  defects  may  be  amended.     2  Blatch.  31. 

Wilder  v.  Stearns.  Safe.  Sale  under  contract.  Royalty. 
48  N.  Y.  656. 

WiLKiNS  V.  Spafford.  Bristle-machine.  Invention  by  em- 
ploye, exclusive  license  to  employer.  Contract  to  serve. 
13  Off.  Gaz.  675. 

Williams  v.  Empire  Transportation  Co.  Plea  to  juris- 
diction. Foreign  corporation /ow«6?  in  State.  14  Off.  Gaz. 
523. 

Williams  v.  Hicks.  Saddles.  Note,  worthless  patent,  not 
admissible  under  non  assumpsit.  False  representations  not 
a  good  defense.     2  Vt.  36. 

Williams  v.  Leonard.  Interlocutory  decree.  Profits  and 
damages.  Salaries  of  defendants.  9  Blatch.  476 ;  5  Fisher, 
381. 

Williams  v.  Rome,  Watertown,  and  Ogdensburg  Rail- 
road. Locomotive-lamps.  Patentable  combinations, 
aggregations.  Combination  is  entirety.  Want  of  novelty. 
15  Off.  Gaz.  653. 

Wilson  y.  Barnum.  Planing-machine.  Authority  of  action  of 
patent-office  on  title  to  patent.  Construction  of  patents. 
Infringement,  combination,  change  of  form.     2  Fisher,  635. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  133 

Wilson  v.  Barnum.  rianing-machine.  Want  of  novelty, 
patent /jrma/acv'e  evidence.  Weight  of  ex  parte  proceed- 
ings. Granting  injunctions.  Dissolution  of  injunctions. 
1  Wall.  Jr.  347;  2  Robb,  749. 

Wilson  v.  Barnum.  Planing-macliine.  Jurisdiction  of  Su- 
preme Court  on  certificate  of  division  is  only  for  law  points. 
8  How.  258. 

Wilson  v.  Janes.  Cooking-stove.  Verdict  set  aside  as 
against  evidence.     3  Blatch.  227. 

Wilson  v.  Marlow.  AVeather-guards  for  windows.  Con- 
struction of  contracts,  implied  covenants.     66  111.  385. 

Wilson  v.  Rousseau.  Planing-machine.  Ten  questions  cer- 
tified to  United  States  Supreme  Court.     1  Blatch.  3. 

Wilson  v.  Rousseau.  Planing-machine.  Extensions  to  ad- 
ministrators. Covenant.  Party  claiming  under  adminis- 
trator can  sue  one  claiming  under  patentee.  Right  of 
assignee  to  sue.  Action  of  Board  of  Commissioners  not 
conclusive.  Authority  to  reissue.  4  How.  646;  2  Robb, 
873. 

Wilson  v.  Sandford.  Planing-machine.  Jurisdiction,  no 
appeal  lies  on  bill  to  set  aside  assignment.     10  How.  99. 

Wilson  v.  Sherman.  Planing-machine.  Preliminary  in- 
junction, violation  of  license,  misapprehension.  1  Blatch. 
536. 

Wilson  r.  Simpson.  Planing-machine.  Fraud,  hearsay  evi- 
dence. Right  of  assignee  to  continue  to  use,  right  to 
repair.     9  How.  109. 

Wilson  v.  Stolly.  Planing-machine.  Reasonable  notice  of 
injunction.     4  McLean,  273. 

Wilson  v.  Stolly.  Planing-machine.  License  as  a  defense. 
Evidence  of  forfeiture  of  license.     4  McLean,  275. 

Wilson  v.  Stolly.  Planing-machine.  License  may  be 
assigned.  Forfeiture  of  license  by  abandonment  or  neglect. 
5  McLean,  1. 

Wilson  v.  Turner.  Planing-machine.  Rights  of  assignees 
and  grantees.  After  extension.  Valuable  inventions. 
What  "renewal  "  means.     Taney,  Dec.  278. 


134  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Wilson  v.  Turner.  Planing-machiue.  "  Wilson  v.  Rous- 
seau settles  this  case."     4  How.  712;  2  Robb,  467. 

Wilson  Packing  Co.  v.  Clapp.  Cooked  corned  beef.  Waut 
of  novelty.  Granting  preliminary  injunctions.  Intimida- 
tion.    13  Off.  Gaz.  368. 

Wilton  v.  Thk  Railroads.  Notice  of  prior  knowledge  and 
use,  particularity  required.      1  Wall.  Jr.  192;  2  Robb,  641. 

WiNANS  V.  Boston  and  Providence  Railroad.  Cars. 
Invalidity  of  particular  patent.  2  Story,  412;  2  Robb, 
136. 

WiNANS  V.  Denmead.  Cars.  When  change  of  form  is 
material.     15  How.  330. 

WiNANS  V.  Eaton.  Cars.  Preliminary  injunctions,  reason- 
able doubt.     Infringement.     1  Fisher,  Ibl. 

Winans  v.  New  York  and  Erie  Railroad.  Cars.  Charge 
to  jury.  Want  of  novelty,  patent  prima  facie  evidence. 
Construction  of  patents.     Disclaimer.     1  Fisher,  213. 

WiNANS  V.  New  York  and  Erie  Railroad.  Cars.  Rejec- 
tion of  evidence,  expert  testimony  sometimes  unnecessary. 
21  How.  88. 

WiNANS  V.  New  York  and  Harlem  Railroad.  Cars. 
Original  inventor.  Want  of  novelty.  Infringement,  im- 
provements.    Damages.     4  Fisher,  1. 

Winans  v.  Schenectady  and  Troy  Railroad.  Cars. 
Patent-office  proceedings  prima  facie  valid.     2  Blatch.  279. 

Windmill  Co.     (See  Continental  Windmill  Co.) 

Wing  v.  Richardson.  Plate-holder  for  cameras.  Original 
inventor,  patent  jorJ?«a  facie  evidence,  how  far  presumption 
extends.  Date  of  invention.  Waut  of  novelty.  2  Cliff. 
449;  2  Fisher,  535. 

Wing  v.  Schoonmaker.  Plate-holder  for  cameras.  Original 
inventor,  state  of  art.     3  Fisher,  607. 

Wing  v.  Wakren.  Plate-holder  for  cameras.  Reissues  to 
patentee  after  assignment.     5  Fisher,  548;  2  Off.  Gaz.  342. 


LIST    OF     CASES.  135 

WiNTERMUTE  V.  Redington.  Water-wheel.  Charge  to  jury. 
Assignments  by  administrators.  Kiglits  of  inventors. 
Utility.  Patents  for  improvements.  Principle  not  patent- 
able. "  IVIacliine."  Damages.  Infringement,  identity. 
1  Fisher,  2:39. 

Wire  Rail  Co.     (See  New  York  Wire  Rail  Co.) 
Wise  v.   Allis.     Balancing  millstones.     Notice  of  prior  use, 
particularity  required.     9  Wall.  737. 

WoNSOX  V.  Gilman.     JNfarine  paint.      Infringement.     11  Oif. 

Gaz.  1011. 
WoNsoN  V.  Peterson.     Marine  paint.     Reissue  not  for  same 

invention.      Defenses  must  be  set  up  in  answer.     13  Off. 

Gaz.  549. 
Wood,  Ex  Parte.      Repeal  of  patents.      Mandamus.      Scire 

facias.     Matters  of  record.     9  Wheat.  603;  1  Robb,  438. 

Wood  v.  Cleveland  Rolling  Mill  Co.  Nuts.  Time  within 
which  to  apply  for  patent.     4  Fisher,  550. 

Wood  r.  Michigan  Southern  Railroad.  Car-brakes.  Con- 
struction of  assignment,  assignee  before  extension  may  use 
after.     2  Bissell,  62 ;  3  Fisher,  464. 

Wood  v.  Underhill.  Brick-making.  Uncertainty  in  specifi- 
cation.    5  How.  1;  2  Robb,  588. 

Wood  v.  Union  Iron  Works.  Nuts.  Time  within  which  to 
apply  for  patent.     4  Fisher,  550. 

Wood  v.  Wells.  Landau  doors.  Construction  of  license.  6 
Fisher,  382. 

Wood  v.  Willi.^ms.  Clover-machine.  Process  to  repeal  pat- 
ents. Patent  suits  are  between  parties,  not  United  States. 
Surreptitiously  obtained.     1  Gilpin,  517;  1  Robb,  717. 

Woodbury  v.  Wilcox.  Invention  is  perfected  conception.  2 
A.  L.  T.  (U.  S.)  R.  129. 

Woodcock  v.  P.\rker.  Splitting  leather.  Who  first  inventor 
is  in  law.     1  Gall.  438;  1  Robb,  37. 

Woodman  v.  Stimpson.  Ornamenting  leather.  Patents  are 
construed  for  benefit  of  inventor.  Patentability.  Want  of 
novelty.  Original  inventor.  First  application.  Com- 
binations.    Date  of  invention.     3  Fisher,  98. 


136  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Wood  Paper  Co.     (See  American  Wood  Paper  Co.) 

Wood  Paper  Patent.  (Appeal,  American  Wood  Paper 
Co.  v.  Fibre  Disintegrating  Co.)  Patentability,  new 
process  with  old  result.  Want  of  novelty.  Reissue  not  for 
same  invention.     Infringement.     23  Wall.  5G6. 

Woodruff  v.  Barney.  Relaxing  costs,  mileage  for  witnesses 
out  of  State,  models,  copies  of  patents.  1  Bond,  528;  2 
Fisher,  244. 

Woodward  v.  Dinsmore.  Solar  camera.  Validity  of  reissues. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  Original  inventor,  pi-inted 
publications.     4  Fisher,  163. 

Woodward  v.  Morrison.  Flour  paste.  State  of  art.  In- 
fringement, compound,  well-known  equivalents.  Specifica- 
tions are  addressed  to  those  skilled  in  the  art.  1  Holmes, 
124;  5  Fisher,  357;  2  Off.  Gaz.  120. 

WooDWORTH  V.  Cheever.  Planing-machinc.  Single  witness 
against  patentee  and  his  presumption.  Extensions  to  ad- 
ministrators. Assignee  after  extension.  Security  for  costs. 
3  Stoiy,  171;  2  Robb,  257. 

WoODWORTH  V.  Cook.  Planing-machine.  Agreement,  bona 
fide  purchasers.     Misjoinder  of  plaintiffs.     2  Blatch.  151. 

WooDWORTH  V.  Curtis.  Planing-machine.  Right  to  use  one 
machine,  implies  right  to  make  it.  Use  after  expiration  of 
license.     2  W.  &  M.  524;  2  Robb,  603. 

WooDWORTH  V.  Edwards.  Planing-machine.  Omission  of 
oath  to  bill.  Patent  for  twenty-eight  years  by  extensions, 
legality.  Demurrers  overruled.  Dissolving  injunctions.  3 
W.  &M.  120;  2  Robb,  610. 

WooDWORTH  V.  Hall.  Planing-machine.  AVhen  injunctions 
will  issue,  long  possession.  Extensions  to  administrators. 
"  Acting  Commissioners."  Reissues  relate  back.  Certified 
copies  of  patents  as  evidence.  1  W.  &  M.  248;  2  Robb, 
495. 

WooDWORTH  V.  Hall.  Planing-machine.  Chief  clerk  acting 
as  Commissioner,  validity  of  patents  granted.  Reissues  re- 
late back.  Dissolution  of  injunctions.  1  W.  &  M.  389;  2 
Robb,  517. 


LIST    OP    CASES.  137 

WoODWORTH  V.  Rogers.  Planing-machine.  Contempt,  same 
principle.  Dissolving  injunctions.  Injunction  as  a  rem- 
edy.    3  W.  &  M.  135;  2  llobb,  625. 

WooDWORTH  V.  Sherman.  Planing-machine.  Single  witness 
against  patentee  and  his  presumption.  Extensions  to  ad- 
ministrators. Assignee  after  extension.  Secui'ity  for  costs. 
3  Story,  171 ;  2  Robb,  257. 

WooDWORTH  V.  Stone.  Planing-machine.  Dissolution  of  in- 
junctions after  reissue.  Assignee's  consent  to  reissue. 
Reissue  not  for  same  invention.  3  Story,  749;  2  Robb, 
29G. 

WooDWORTH  V.  Weed.  Planing-machine.  Forfeiture  of  li- 
cense.    1  Blatch.  165. 

WoODWORTH  V.  Wilson.  Planing-machine.  Assignee's  right 
to  apply  for  extension.  Original  inventor.  Clearness  in 
specification.  Assignee's  and  assignor's  right  to  sue.  4 
How.  712;  2  Robb,  473. 

WooLCOCKS  V.  Many.  Speaking-tube  whistles.  Infringe- 
ment, combination,  equivalents.  9  Blatch.  139;  5  Fisher, 
72. 

WoosTER  V.  Calhoun.  Ruffle.  Product  not  patentable. 
Original  inventor.     11  Blatch.  215;  6  Fisher,  514. 

WoosTER  V.  SiDENBERG.  Sewing-machine.  Assignee  before 
extension  uses  after.     13  Blatch.  88;  10  Off.  Gaz.  244. 

WoosTER  V.  Taylor.  Sewing-machine.  Agreement.  As- 
signments before  extension.  Nominal  consideration.  12 
Blatch.  384;  8  Off.  Gaz.  644. 

WoosTER  V.  Taylor.  .Sewing-machine.  Master's  report, 
profits  and  damages.     14  Blatch.  403. 

Woven  Tape  Skirt  Co.,  In  re.  Skirts.  Receiver  of  corpora- 
tion has  the  exclusive  right  to  use  its  patents.  Infringement 
suits  must  be  brought  in  United  States  courts.  12  Hun 
(N.  Y),  111. 

Wright  v.  Glick.  Farm-gates.  Bill  dismissed.  13  Off.  Gaz. 
47. 


138  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Wright  v.  Hickey.  Farm-gates.  Bill  dismissed.  13  Off. 
Gaz.  47. 

Wright  v.  McMillan.  Farm-gates.  Bill  dismissed.  13  Off. 
Gaz.  47. 

Wright  v.  Smithpeter.  Farm-gates.  Bill  dismissed.  13 
Off.  Gaz.  47. 

Wright  v.  Wilson.  Looms.  Breach  of  warranty.  State 
court  has  jurisdiction  except  where  validity  is  involved. 
11  Rich.  (S.  C.)  144. 

Wringing  Machine  Co.  (See  Metropolitan  Wringing 
Machine  Co.) 

Wyeth  r.  Stone.  Ice-cutter.  Want  of  novelty.  In- 
fringement, same  mode  of  operation.  Public  use,  aban- 
donment. Refusing  injunctions.  Construction  of  pat- 
ents. Recording  assignments.  1  Story,  273;  2  Robb, 
23. 


Yale  and  Greenleaf  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  North. 
Locks.  Want  of  novelty,  combinations.  5  Blatch.  455;  3 
Fisher,  279. 

York  and  Maryland  Line  Railroad  v.  Winans.  Cars. 
Infringement,  corporation  in  other  State  connected  with 
one  in  this.     17  How.  30. 

Young  v.  Hunter.  Wagon-wheels.  Contract,  time  to  try 
and  elect,  reassignment,  conditions  precedent.  6  N.  Y. 
203. 

Young  v.  Lippman.  Hoop-skirt  springs.  Infringement,  par- 
ticular patent.  9  Blatch.  277;  5  Fisher,  230;  2  Off.  Gaz. 
249. 

Young  v.  Lippman.  Hoop-skirt  springs.  Motion  to  dissolve. 
Want  of  novelty.  9  Blatch.  283;  5  Fisher,  236;  2  Off. 
Gaz.  342. 


LIST    OF    CASES.  139 

YuENGLiNG  V.  JoHXSON.  Liquoi-iegister.  Preliminary  in- 
junctions, reasonable  notice  no  longer  required.  Discretion 
of  United  States  Courts.  Action  of  Commissioner  is  prima 
facie  evidence  for  or  against.  New  combination  of  old  de- 
vices is  not  entitled  to  equivalents.     1  Hughes,  607. 


z. 

Zane  v.  Peck.     Self-closing  faucet.     Want  of  novelty,  econ- 
omy, structural  change.     12  Off.  Gaz.  518 


PART    II. 
SYNOPSIS     OF     LAW     POINTS. 


PART   n. 

SYNOPSIS   OF   LAW   POINTS. 


ABANDONED   EXPERIMENTS. 

Single  machine,  twenty  j'ears  before,  not  enough.     Blake  v. 

Rawson,  1  Holmes,  200;  6  Fisher,  74;  3  Off.  Gaz.  122. 
Will  not  anticipate  patent  if  unknown  to  patentee.     Cahoon  v. 

Ring,  1  Cliff.  592;  1  Fisher,  397. 
Experiments  equivocal  in  their  results  and  given  up  for  years 

will  not  anticipate.     Ellithorp  v.  Robertson,  4  Blatch.  307; 

2  Fisher,  83. 
Cast  aside,   taken    apart,  and    parts   used  for  other  purposes. 

Gallahue   v.  Butterfield,   10   Blatch.  232;  G  Fisher,  203;  2 

Off.  Gaz.  645. 
Lost  arts,  finally  forgotten.     Gaylor  v.  Wilder,  10  IIow.  477. 
Old  remains.     Howe  v.  Underwood,  1  Fisher,  160. 
Attempt  to  produce,  if  unsuccessful  will  not  anticipate.     Many 

V.  Sizer,  1  Fisher,  17. 
Statement  to  that  effect  by  plaintiff  not  admissible.     ^lany  v. 

Jagger,  1  Blatch.  372. 
Did  not  go  into  use,  and  were  abandoned.     McConnick  v.  Sey- 
mour, 3  Blatch.  209. 
Never  made  public,  and  at  last  abandoned  and  lost.     Murphy  v. 

Eastham,  1  Holmes,  113;  5  Fisher,  306;  2  Off.  Gaz.  61. 
Experimental  and  fruitless.     National  Car  Spring  Co.  v.  Union 

Car  Spring  Co..  12  Blatch.  SO;  6  Off.  Gaz.  221. 
Successful  experiments  in  public  which  show  the  merits  of  the 

invention,  though  disused,  are  not  ahandoned.     Northwest 

Fire  Extinguisher  Co.  v.   Philadelphia   Fire  Extinguisher 

Co.,  6  Off.  Gaz.  34. 
Private  use,  rea.sonable  diligence.      Ransom  r.  Mayor  of  New 

York,  1  Fisher,  252. 


144  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Temporary  disuse  because  demand  was  light  is  not  abandoned, 
experiment.     Snow  v.  Tapley,  13  Off.  Gaz.  548. 

Abortive  experiments,  abandoned  after  filing  caveat.  Stain- 
thorp  V.  Elkinton,  1  Fisher,  349. 

If  they  furnish  definite  ideas  to  inventor  defeats  his  patent. 
Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Pultz  and  AValkley  Co., 
15  Ofe.Gaz.  423. 

However  suggestive,  producing  no  practical  result,  does  not  an- 
ticipate. United  Nickel  Co.  v.  Anthes,  1  Holmes,  155;  5 
Fisher,  517;  1  Off.  Gaz.  578. 

Inventor  may  enter  the  field  abandoned  by  a  less  successful  in- 
ventor.    Whitely  v.  Swayne,  7  Wall.  685. 
(See  Original  Inventor.) 

ABANDONMENT. 

Acquiescence  in  use  by  public.  Howe  v.  Williams,  2  Fisher, 
395;  Wyeth  v.  Stone,  1  Story,  273;  2  Robb,  23. 

Rejected  application.  Adams  v.  Edwai'ds,  1  Fisher,  1 ;  Good- 
year Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Wetherbee,  2  Cliff.  555;  3 
Fisher,  87. 

Continuity  of  applications  where  no  actual  abandonment.  Good- 
year Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Willis,  7  Off.  Gaz.  41. 

After  application,  proof  must  be  clear.  M'Millin  v.  Barclay, 
5  Fisher,  189. 

Between  successive  applications ;  public  use.  Howe  v.  Newton, 
2  Fisher,  531. 

Remissness  of  agents  in  filing  application  after  it  was  ready. 
Birdsell  v.  McDonald,  6  Off.  Gaz.  682. 

Before  first  application.     Rich  v.  Lippincott,  2  Fisher,  1. 

Causes  of,  patriotism,  generosity,  despair,  &c.  Adams  v,  Ed- 
wards, 1  Fisher,  1. 

Delay,  involuntary.     Adams  v.  Jones,  1  Fisher,  527. 

Delay  while  perfecting  invention.  Kendall  v.  Winsor,  21  How. 
322;  Agawam  Co.  v.  Jordan,  7  Wall.  583. 

May  be  done  at  any  time.  American  Hide  and  Leather  Split- 
ting, &c.  Co.  V.  American  Tool  Co.,  1  Holmes,  503;  4 
Fisher,  284. 

After  patent  issues,  proof  must  be  strong.  Bell  v.  Daniels,  1 
Bond,  212;  1  Fisher,  372. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  145 

Five   years  lying  dormant.      Carleton  v.   Atwood,  2    A.  L.  T. 

(U.  S)  R.  129. 
Nine   years'    neglect  and   invention   by  others.     Consolidated 

Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  Wright,  12  Blalch.  149;    6  Off.  Gaz.  327; 

also  4  Otto,  92. 
Machine   put  away  in  cellar.      Hall  v.  Bird,  6  Blatch.  438;  3 

Fisher,  595. 
Reissue  prima  facie  evidence  against.      Hoffheims  v.  Brandt, 

3  Fisher,  218. 
Principles  of    abandonment.      Johnson  v.  Fassman,  1  Woods, 

138;  5  Fisher,  471;  2  Off.  Gaz.  94. 
Unavoidable   delay.     Jones   v.  Sewall,   3  Cliff.  563;  6  Fisher, 

313;  2  Off.  Gaz.  630. 
Mere  delay  is  not  enough.    Kelleher  v.  Darling,  14  Off.  Gaz.  673. 
Delay  during  war  is  not.     Knox  o.  Loweree,  6  Off.  Gaz.  802. 
Public  use  as  evidence.     Locomotive  Engine  Safety  Truck  Co. 

V.  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  6  Off.  Gaz.  927. 
Non-action   for   eighteen    years,   original    reason    immaterial. 

Marsh  v.  Commissioner  of  Patents,  3  Bissell,  321. 
Too  long  delay  and  invention  by  others.      Marsh  v.  Sayles,  5 

Fisher,  61*0;  2  Off.  Gaz.  398. 
Sale  by  inventor  within  two  years  not  conclusive.      McCormick 

V.  Seymour,  2  Blatch.  240. 
Evidence  of.     lackering  v.  McCuIloch,  13  Off.  Gaz.  818. 
Cannot  be  recalled.  Ransom  v.  Mayorof  New  York,  1  Fisher,  252. 
Publicity  of    experiments  to  test  the  invention.     Andrews  v. 

Carman,  13  Blatch.  307. 
Public  use  for  ten  years  with  consent  of  inventor.     Bevin  v. 

East  Hampton  Bell  Co.,  9  Blatch.  50;  5  Fisher,  23. 
Use  to  test  qualities  and  remedy  defects.     City  of  Elizabeth  v. 

Pavement  Co.,  7  Otto,  126. 
Must  be  to  the  public,  and  must  be  set  up  in  answer.     Clark  v. 

Scott,  9  Blatch.  301;  5  Fisher,  245;  2  Off.  Gaz.  4. 
Delay,  poverty  and  wrong  action  by  Patent  Office.     Colgate  v. 

Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.,  14  Off.  Gaz.  943. 
Omission  to  claim  in  patent.  Conklin  i'.  Stafford,  5  Off.  Gaz.  235. 
Lapse  of  time  from  issue  to  suit.     Emerson  v.  Hogg,  2  Blatch.  7. 
Disuse   of  patent   after  issue   is   not  abandonment.     Gray  v. 

James,  Peters,  C.  C.  394;  1  Robb,  120. 
10 


146  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Inference  from  specification.  Henderson  v.  Cleveland  Co-oper- 
ative Store  Co.,  12  Off.  Gaz.  4. 

Element  taken  out  of  model  and  substitute  put  in.  Johnson  v. 
Root,  2  Cliff.  108;  2  Fisher,  291. 

Publication  of  discovery  and  free  use  by  public.  Pennock  v. 
Dialogue,  4  Wash.  538;  1  Robb,  466. 

Consent  is  necessary.  Pierson  v.  Eagle  Screw  Co.,  3  Story,  402; 
2  Robb,  268. 

Declarations  of  intention  not  enough.  Pitts  v.  Hall,  2  Blatch. 
229. 

Before  first  application.     Rich  v.  Lippincott,  2  Fisher,  1. 

Construction  of  sect.  7  of  1839,  on  prior  use.     Sanders  v.  Logan, 

2  Fisher,  167. 

Does  not  depend  on  intention,  but  fact.  Shaw  v.  Cooper,  7 
Peters,  29 ;  1  Robb,  643. 

Forfeitures  and  abandonment  not  favored,  but  must  be  con- 
clusively shown.     Singer  v.  Braunsdorf,  7  Blatch.  521. 

Laches  of  his  attorneys.     Weston  i\  White,  13  Blatch.  447. 

Claim  for  combination  only  is  abandonment  of  its  parts.  Bat- 
ten V.  Taggert,  2  Wall.  Jr.  101. 

Sales  by  inventor  more  than  two  years  before.  Earl  v.  Page, 
6  N.  H.  477. 

Rejected  twice,  delay  of  eleven  years,  four  patents  meanwhile. 
Gates  V.  Benson,  3  A.  L.  T.  (U.  S.)  R.  113. 

Evidence  must  be  of  a  distinctive  character.     Hovey  v.  Henry, 

3  West.  L.  J.  153. 

Neglect  for  nine  years.     Rowley  v.  Mason,  2  A.   L.  T.  (U.  S.) 

R.  106. 
Mere  lapse  of  time  not  conclusive.      Russell  and  Erwin  Manu- 
facturing Co.  V.  Mallory,  10  Blatch.  140;  5  Fisher,  632;  2 

Off.  Gaz.  495. 
Abandonment  is  a  fact,  not  a  conclusion  of  law.     Sprague  v. 

Adriance,  14  Off.  Gaz.  308. 
Weight  of  Commissioner's  decision  upon.      United  States  Rifle 

and  Cartridge  Co.  v.  Whitney  Arms  Co.,  14  Blatch.  94;  11 

Off.  Gaz.  373. 
Experimental  use.      United   States  Rifle  and  Cartridge  Co.  v. 

Whitney  Arms  Co.,  14  Blatch.  94;  11  Off.  Gaz.  373. 
(See  Dedication;    License;    Pleading;    Preliminary  In- 

.;  UNCTIONS.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  147 

ABATEMENT. 
(See  Partners;    Pleading.) 

ACCIDENT. 
(See  Invention.) 

ACCORD    AND    SATISFACTION. 
(See  Contract.) 

ACCOUNT. 

Right  to  an  account  is  incident  of  and  dependent  on  injunction. 
Draper  v.  Hudson,  208;  6  Fisher,  327;  3  Off.  Gaz.  354. 

Where  injunction  cannot  be  granted  at  once.  ImJay  v.  Nor- 
wich and  Worcester  Raihoad,  4  Blatch.  227;  1  Fisher,  340. 

Without  injunction.  Smith  v.  Baker's  Administrators,  5  Off. 
Gaz.  496. 

Without  injunction,  patent  having  expired.  I  inlay  v.  Norwich 
and  Worcester  Raihoad,  4  Blatch.  227;  1  Fisher,  340;  Sey- 
mour V.  Marsh,  6  Fisher,  115;  9  Phila.  380;  2  Off.  Gaz. 
675. 

Account  of  profits.  Mowry  v.  Whitney,  14  Wall.  620;  5 
Fisher,  494;  1  Off.  Gaz.  492;  Providence  Rubber  Co.  v. 
Goodyear,  9  Wall.  788. 

(See  Bill;  Estoppel;  Jurisdiction.) 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT. 

(See  Contract.) 

ACQUIESCENCE. 

(See  Infringement;  Injunction;  Preliminary  Injunc- 
tions.) 

ACTS. 

Of  1789,  construction.     Chaffee  v.  Hayward,  20  How.  208. 
1836,  sect.  14.     Merchant  v.  Lewis,  1  Bond,  172. 


148  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

1836,  repeal  of,  does  not  aifect  patents  granted  under  it.     Union 

Paper  Bag  Machine   Co.    v.    Newell,    11    Blatch.  379;    6 

Fisher,  582;  5  Off.  Gaz.  459. 
1839,  constitutionality.     Blanchard  v.  Sprague,  3  Sumner,  535; 

1  Robb,  734. 
Evans's  special  act.    Evans  v.  Jordan  and  Morehead,  9  Cranch, 

199;  1  Robb,  57;  Evans  r.  Weiss,  2  Wash.  342;  1  Robb,  10. 
Woodworth's  special  act.     Gibson  v.  Gifford,  1  Blatch.  529. 
(See  Abandonment;  Extensions;  Fraud;  Public  Officer; 
Reissue;  Statutes.) 

ADMINISTRATOR. 

Appointment  of,  not  open  collaterally.  Northwest  Fire  Ex- 
tinguisher Co.  V.  Philadelphia  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.,  6 
Off.  Gaz.  34. 

Liability,  royalties  are  not  "  new  assets."  Robinson  v.  Hodge, 
117  Mass.  222. 

Rights  of  administratrix  versus  assignee.      Oliver  v.  Morgan,  10 
Heisk.  (Tenn.)  322. 
(See  Assignment;  Extensions;  Patent;  Reissue.) 

ADMISSIONS. 

Of  parties  to  contract.     Goodyear  v.  Gary,  4  Blatch.  271. 

Generally.     Ely  v.  Monson,  4  Fisher,  64. 

By  defendant,  weight  of.     Hussey  v.   McCormick,    1    Bissell, 

300;  1  Fisher,  509. 
Striking  out  admission  of  infringement.      Morehead  v.  Jones, 

3  Wall.  Jr.  306;  Ruggles  v.  Eddy,  11  Blatch.  524. 
(See  Answer;  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

ADVICE   OF   COUNSEL. 
(See  Injunction.) 

AFFIDAVITS. 
Not  entitled  in  cause.     Buerk  v.  Imhauser,  10  Off.  Gaz.  907. 
Immaterial.     Lockwood  v.  Lock  wood,  33  Iowa,  198. 
In  support  of  bill.     Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  3  McLean,  250;  2  Robb, 

118. 
Taken  before  bill  filed.     Baldwin  v.  Bernhard,  5  Fisher,  442 ;  2 

Off.  Gaz.  320;  9  Blatch.  509,  note. 


SYNOPSIS    OP    LAW    POINTS.  149 

Practice  as  to.     Day  r.  Boston  Belting  Co.,  16  Law  Rep.  329. 
(See  Prelimixauy  Injunctions.) 

AGENTS. 

(See  Abandonment;  Bill;  Infkingement;  In.tunction; 
Note;  Fkeliminaky  Injunctions;  Sale.) 

AGREEMENT. 
(See  Contract.) 

AGGREGATION. 
(See  Combination;  Patentability;  Want  of  Novelty.) 

ALIEN. 

Assignments  from.     Tatham  v.  Lowher,  2  Blatch.  49. 
False  oath.     Child  v.  Adams,  3  Wall.  Jr.  20;  1  Fisher,  189. 
(See  Assignment.) 

ALLEGATION. 

General  allegation  of  infringement  is  enough.  Haven  v.  Brown, 
6  Fisher,  413;  Thatcher  Heating  Co.  v.  Carbon  Stove  Co., 
15  Off.  Gaz.  1051;  Turrell  v.  Cammerrer,  3  Fisher,  462. 

That  infringement  is  contrary  to  statute,  not  necessary.  Parker 
V.  Haworth,  4  McLeaw,  370;  2  Robb,  725. 

Of  petition  for  patent,  not  recited.  Evans  v.  Chambers,  2 
Wash.  125;  1  Robb,  7. 

Of  public  use,  notice  of  places  required.  Agawam  Co.  v.  Jor- 
dan, 7  AVall.  5S3. 

Of  residence  of  parties.     Teese  v.  Phelps,  1  McAllister,  17. 
(See  Pleading  ;  Public  Use.) 

AMBIGUITY. 
(See  Reissue  ;  Uncertainty.) 

AMENDMENT. 

(See  Answer;  Bill;  Corporation;  Declaration;  Decree; 
Evidence.) 


150  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


ANSWER. 

Amending,  laches.  Webster  Loom  Co.  v.  Higgins,  13  Blatch. 
349;  9  Off.  Gaz.  965. 

Amending  after  decree.  India-rubber  Comb  Co.  v.  Phelps,  8 
Blatch.  85;  4  Fisher,  315. 

Amending  by  striking  out  admission  of  use  of  articles  or  in- 
fringement. Morehead  v.  Jones,  3  Wall.  Jr.  306;  Ruggles 
V.  Eddy,  11  Blatch.  524. 

Prematurely  filed.     Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  3  McLean,  250;  2  Robb, 
118. 
(See  Abandonment;  Defense;  Evidence;  Injunction; 
Patent.) 

ANTICIPATION. 
(See  Want  of  Novelty.) 

APPEALS. 

No  appeal  lies  on  bill  to  set  aside  assignment.  Wilson  v.  Sand- 
ford,  10  How.  99. 

From  Commissioner,  refusal  to  reissue.  Gould,  II.  W.,  Ex  parte, 
1  McArthur,  410;  5  Off.  Gaz.  121. 

From  Commissioner.  Conklin  v.  Stafford,  5  Off.  Gaz.  235; 
Merrill,  Rufus  S.,  5  Off.  Gaz.  120;  Pennock,  J.  L.,  5  Off. 
Gaz.  668. 

Cross-appeals.  Blake  v.  Robertson,  4  Otto,  728;  11  Off.  Gaz. 
877;  Robertson  v.  Blake,  4  Otto,  728;  11  Off.  Gaz.  877. 

Only  from  final  decrees.     Barnard  v.  Gibson,  7  How.  650. 

None  from  discretion  of  Circuit  Court.  Dean  v.  Mason,  20 
How.  198. 

Case  coming  up  by  discretion  comes  up  as  a  whole.  Hogg  v. 
Emerson,  6  How.  437;  2  Robb,  655. 

Dismissing,  plaintiffs  owning  both  sides  of  litigation.  Ameri- 
can Wood  Paper  Co.  v.  Heft,  8  ^Vall.  333. 

Dismissing,  parting  with  interest.    Dean  v.  Mason,  20  How.  198. 

No  appeal  from  injunction  and  account  till  Master  reports. 
Potter  V.  Mack,  3  Fisher,  428. 

Frivolous  appeal,  double  costs.     Rice  v.  Garnhart,  34  Wise.  470. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  151 

APPEARANCE. 
(See  Jurisdiction;  Waiver.) 

APPLICATION. 
Continuity  of,  •withdrawing  one  and  putting  in  other.     God- 
frey I'.  Eames,  1  Wall.  317. 
Date.     Singer  v.  Braunsdorf,  7  Blatch.  521. 
Date  cannot  be  proved  by  parol.     Wayne  v.  Winter,  6  McLean, 

344. 
First  application.     Woodman  v.  Stimpson,  3  Fisher,  98. 
Where  there  are  several,   patent  is  presumed  to  issue  on  the 

frst.     Pelton  v.  Waters,  7  OfE.  Gaz.  425. 

For  patents  are  ex  parte  only.     Potter  v.  Stevens,  2  Fisher,  163. 

Time,  within  which  to  apply  for  patent.     Wood  v.  Cleveland 

Rolling  Mill  Co.,  4  Fisher,  550. 

(See  Abandonment;  Assignee;  Evidence;  Invention; 

Prior  Use;  Public  Use.) 

APPORTIONMENT. 

(See  Assignment;  Damages.) 

APPROXIMATIONS. 

(See  Invention.) 

ARBITRATORS. 
Presumed  to  decide  correctly.     Reedy  v.  Scott,  7  Off.  Gaz.  463. 

ART. 

Patents  for.     French  v.  Rogers,  1  Fisher,  133. 
Lost  arts.     Gay  lor  v.  Wilder,  10  How.  477. 
(See  Abandoned  Experiments;  Construction  of  Patents; 
Definition;  Patentability.) 

ASSIGNEES. 

Assignees  of  executors.     Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fabrics  Co., 
3  Cliff.  356 ;  5  Fisher,  90. 


162  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Assignee  of  executor  may  reissue.  Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic 
Fabrics  Co.,  1  Holmes,  45;  1  Off.  Gaz.  91. 

Must  join  in  surrender  and  reissue.  Meyer  v.  Bailey,  8  Off. 
Gaz.  437. 

Legal  representatives  include  assignees.  Hamilton  v.  Kings- 
bury, 14  Off.  Gaz.  448. 

Assignee  sues,  not  patentee.  Herbert  v.  Adams,  4  Mason,  15; 
1  Robb,  505. 

Cannot  sue  in  equity.     Ogle  v.  Ege,  4  Wash.  584  ;  1  Robb,  516. 

Joining  as  plaintiffs.     Stein  ?>.  Goddard,  1  McAllister,  82. 

Of  part,  cannot  sue.  Tyler  v.  Tuel,  6  Cranch,  324;  1  Robb, 
14. 

Right  to  sue.  Wilson  v.  Rousseau,  4  How.  646;  2  Robb,  373; 
Woodworth  v.  Wilson,  4  How.  712  ;  2  Robb,  473. 

Rights  after  extension.  Eunson  v.  Dodge,  18  Wall.  414;  5  Off. 
Gaz.  95;  Wilson  v.  Turner,  Taney,  Dec.  278;  Woodworth 
V.  Cheever,  3  Story,  171;  2  Robb,  257. 

Before  extension  uses  after.  Wood  v.  Michigan  Southern  Rail- 
road, 2  Bissell,  62;  3  Fisher,  464;  Wooster  v.  Sidenberg, 
13  Blatch.  88;  10  Off.  Gaz.  244. 

Rights  are  only  such  as  inventors  have.  Tatham  v.  Loring,  5 
N.  y.  Leg.  Obs.  207. 

Right  to  continue  to  use  and  repair.  Wilson  v.  Simpson,  9 
How.  109. 

Right  to  apply  for  extension.  Woodworth  v.  Wilson,  4  How. 
712;  2  Robb,  473. 

Territorial  assignee,  rights  of.  McKay  v.  Wooster,  2  Sawyer, 
373;  6  Fisher,  375;  3  Off.  Ga?;.  441 ;  Simpson  v.  Wilson,  4 
How.  709;  2  Robb,  469. 

Territorial  assignee  cannot  stop  patentee  or  others  working  out- 
side of  his  territory.     Kempton  v.  Bray,  99  Mass.  350. 

(See  Administrator;  Assignment;  In.junction;  Reissue  ; 
Sale.) 

ASSIGNMENTS. 

By  administrators.     Wintermute  v.  Redington,  1  Fisher,  239. 
Agreement  to  assign  does  not  bar  suits.    Park  v.  Little,  3  Wash. 

198;  1  Robb,  17. 
From  alien  patentees.     Tatham  v.  Lowber,  2  Blatch.  49. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  163 

Apportionment  of  rights.     Brooks  v.   Byam,  2   Story,  525 ;  2 

Robb,  IGl. 
Patents  can  be  divided  only  according  to  United  States  laws. 

Kempton  v.  Bray,  99  Mass.  350. 
Assignments  in  whole  or  in  part.     Parker  v.  Ilaworth,  4  Mc- 
Lean, 370;  2  Robb,  725. 
To  company  and  use  Ijy  its  assignee.     Emigh  v.  Chamberlain,  1 

Bissell,  3G7;  2  Fisher,  192. 
Compelling  assignments.     Binney  v.  Annan,  107  Mass.  94. 
Conditional  assignments.     Brooks  v.   Stolley,  3  McLean,  523; 

2  Robb,  28L 
Consideration,  parol  evidence  to  vaiy.     "Wheeler  v.  Billings,  38 

N.  Y.  263. 
Construction  of,  extraneous  facts.     Day  v.  Cary,  1  Fisher,  424. 
Construction   of,    written   instruments.       Day    v.    Stellman,    1 

Fisher,  487. 
Construction  of,   before  issue  and  before  extension.      Gear  v. 

Grosvenor,  1  Holmes,  215;  6  Fisher,  314;  3  Off.  Gaz.  380. 
Construction  of,  habendum  clause.     Gear  i'.  Holmes,  6  Fisher, 

595;  Jenkins  v.  Nicolson  Pavement  Co.,  1  Abbott,  567;  4 

Fisher,  201. 
Construction,  "  term  for  which  are  or  may  be  granted."     Am- 
erican Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  14  Wall.  452;  5 

Fisher,  491;  1  Off.  Gaz.  465. 
Copies  of,  certified.     Lee  v.  Blandy,  1  Bond,  361;  2  Fi-sher,  89. 
Date  of.     Dyer  v.  Rich,  1  Met.  (Mass.)  180. 
Parol  declarations   of  patentee,   effect.     Baldwin   v.  Sibley,   1 

Cliff.  1.50. 
Amounting  to  quitclaim  deed.     Gilmore  r.  Aiken,  118  Mass.  94. 
To  defendant,  effect.     Clum  v.  Brewer,  2  Curtis,  506. 
Effect  on  extension.     Blanchard  Gunstock  Factoiy  v.  Warner,  1 

Blatch.  258 ;  Chase  v.  Walker,  3  Fisher,  120 ;  Mowiy  v.  Grand 

Street  and  Newton  Railroad,   10   Blatch.   89;    5  Fisher, 

586. 

Effect  of,  by  statute.     Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  4  McLean,  64. 
Effect  of,  parol  evidence  to  vary  not  admissible,     Ruggles  v. 

Eddy,  10  Blatch.  52;  5  Fisher,  581. 
Admissibility  of  evidence  of  a.ssignment.     Many  v.  Jagger,  1 

Blatch.  372;  Munde  u.  Lambie,  122  Mass.  33!J. 


154  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Assignment  of  executi'ix  as  administratrix.     Newell  v.  West,  13 

Blatch.  114;  8  Off.  Gaz.  598. 
Extensions  not  carried.     Case  v.  Kedfield,  4  McLean,  526;  2 

Robb,  741. 
Befoi-e  extension.     Gibson  v.  Cook,  2  Blatch.  144. 
Of  extension  before  granted.    Railroad  Co.  v.  Trimble,  10  WaU. 

367. 
Before  extension,  nominal  consideration.     Wooster  v.  Taylor, 

12  Blatch.  384 ;  8  Off.  Gaz.  644. 
Interest  conveyed  by.     Ritter  v.  Serrell,  2  Blatch.  379. 
Interpretation  of  assignments.    Waterman  v.  Wallace,  13  Blatch. 

129. 
Before  issue.     Cammeyer  v.  Newton,  4  Otto,  225;  11  Off.  Gaz. 

287 ;  Gaylor  v.  Wilder,  10  How.  477. 
Before  issue,  effect  on  extensions.    Clum  v.  Brewer,  2  Curtis,  506. 
Before  issue,  what  it  conveys.     Emmons  v.  Sladdin,  9  Off.  Gaz. 

352. 
Before  issue,  issue  to  assignee,  he  has  right  to  get  extension. 

Hendrie  v.  Sayles,  8  Otto,  546. 
Before  issue  is  good.     Herbert  v.  Adams,  4  Mason,  15 ;  1  Robb, 

505. 
Before  issue  for  poverty  of  inventor.     Rathbone  v.  Orr,  5  Mc- 
Lean, 131. 
Which  conveys  no  interest  in  the  patent-right  is  a  mere  license. 

Armstrong  v.  Hanlenbeck,  3  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  43. 
Patentee  has  a  right  to  assign  or  license  as  most  profitable.    Burr 

V.  Duryee,  2  Fisher,  275. 
Distinguished  from  license.     Farrington  v.  Gregory,  4  Fisher, 

221 ;  Littlefield  v.  Ferry,  21  Wall.  205  ;  7  Off.  Gaz.  964  ; 

Potter  V.  Holland,  4  Blatch.  206;  1  Fisher,  327;  Sanford 

V.  Messer,  1  Holmes,  149;   5  Fisher,  411 ;   2  Off.  Gaz.  470. 
Assignee  can  sue,  licensee  cannot.    Littlefield  v.  Perry,  21  Wall. 

205 ;  7  Off.  Gaz.  964. 
What  it  means.     Barnes  v.  Morgan,  3  Hun  (N.  Y.),  703;  6  Th. 

6  C.  (N.  Y.)  105. 

Ohio  law.     Blakenay  v.  Goode,  30  Ohio  St.  350. 
Failure  to  record  does  not  forfeit  right  of  assignee.     Boyd  v. 
McAlpin,  3  McLean,  427;  2  Robb,  277;  Perry  v.  Corning, 

7  Blatch.  195. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  155 

Record  only  necessary  by  way  of  notice  to  strangers.  Case  o. 
Redfield,  4  McLean,  526;  2  Robb,  741. 

Omission  to  state  record  of  is  cured  by  verdict.  Dobson  v.  Camp- 
bell, 1  Sumn.  319;  1  Robb,  681. 

Must  be  recorded  to  defeat  subsequent  purchasers.  Gibson  v. 
Cook,  2  Blatch.  144;  Hig^jiiis  v.  Strong,  4  Blackf.  (Ind.)  182; 
TurnbuU  v.  Weir  Plow  Co.,  6  Bissell,  225;  7  Off.  Gaz.  173. 

Time  to  record.     Pitts  v.  Wliitman,  2  Story,  609;  2  Robb,  189. 

Cannot  sue  till  recorded.  Wyeth  v.  Stone,  1  Story,  273;  2  Robb, 
23. 

Record  only  necessary  as  notice  to  subsequent  purchasers.  Black 
V.  Stone,  33  Ala.  327 ;  Hall  v.  Speer,  6  Pitts.  L.  J.  403. 

Assignment  before  issue  of  patent  may  be  recorded  at  any  time 
before  issue  of  patent.     Gay  v.  Cornell,  1  Blatch.  506. 

Unrecorded,  good  except  against  creditors  and  bona  Jide  pur- 
chasers.    Holden  v.  Curtis,  2  N.  H.  61. 

Statute  is  directory  on  subject  of  recording,  not  peremptory. 
Loudon  V.  Birt,  4  Lid.  566. 

Valid  without  recording.     McKernan  v.  Hite,  6  Ind.  428. 

Unrecorded,  good  against  subsequent  assignees  without  consid- 
eration.    Saxton  V.  Aultman,  15  Ohio  St.  471. 

Clerk  in  Patent  Office  as  witness  of  record.  Sone  v.  Palmer,  28 
Mo.  539. 

After  patent  is  rejected.     Gay  v.  Cornell.     1  Blatch.  506. 

"Without  restriction."  McKay  v.  Wooster,  2  Sawyer,  373;  6 
Fisher,  375;  3  Off.  Gaz.  441. 

And  rights  of  assignees.     Suydam  v.  Day,  2  Blatch.  20. 

Parties  to  sue.  Blanchard  v.  Eldi-idge,  1  Wall.  Jr.  337;  2 
Robb,  737 ;  Dibble  v.  Augur,  7  Blatch.  86. 

Territorial,  use  outside.  Adams  v.  Burke,  1  Holmes,  40;  4 
Fi.sher,  392. 

Territorial  rights.  Boyd  v.  Brown,  3  McLean,  295;  2  Robb, 
203. 

Territorial  right  to  use.  Dorsey  Revolving  Harvester  Rake 
Co.  V.  Bradley  Manufacturing  Co.,  12  Blatch.  202. 

Territorial  assignments.  Hamilton  i>.  Kingsbury,  14  Off.  Gaz. 
448. 

Territorial  assignments,  rights  conveyed.  May  v.  Chaffee,  2 
Dillon,  385;  5  Fisher,  160. 


156  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Title  to  convey,  defendant's  title  defective.     Moore  v.  Bare,  11 

Iowa,  198. 
Must  be  in  writing.     Galpin  v.  Atwater,  29  Conn.  93;  Jordan 

V.  Dobson,  2  Abbott,  398;  7  Phila.  533;  4  Fisher,  232. 
(See   Alien  ;    Appeal  ;    Coxtract  ;    Extension;  License; 

Note;  Preliminary  Injunctions:  Reissue;  Title.) 

ATTACHMENT. 
(See  Injunction  ;  Master.) 

ATTORNEY. 

Powers  of  attorney.     Day  v.  Candee,  3  Fisher,  9. 
(See  Abandonment;  Contract.) 

AUTHORITY. 
(See  Commissioner  ;  Court.) 

BAR. 
(See  Pleading  ;  Suit.) 

BELIEF. 
(See  Inventor.) 

BILL   IN   EQUITY. 

For  account  on]y.     Perry  v.  Corning,  fi  Blatch.  134. 
For  account  and  discovery.     Perry  v.  Corning,  6  Blatch.  134. 
Amendments.     Tremaine  v.  Hitchcock,  7  Off.  Gaz.  1055. 
Successive   bills   for   continuing   infiingement.      Pennsylvania 

Salt  Co.  V.  Myers,  1  AVeekly  Notes,  377;  Turrell  v.  Spaeth, 

9  Off.  Gaz.  1163. 
Discovery  of  profits.     Vaughan  v.  Central  Pacific  Railroad,  4 

Sawyer,  280;  Vaughan   v.  East  Tennessee,  Virginia,  and 

Georgia  Railroad,  11  Off.  Gaz.  789. 
Omission   of   oath.      National   Hay    Rake   Co.    v.   Harbert,    2 

Weekly  Notes,  100;  Woodworth  ;;.  Edwards,  3  W.  &  M. 

120;  2  Robb,  610. 
For  reassignment,  agent   to   sell,  buys.     Jeffries  v.  Wiester,  2 

Sawyer,  135. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW     POINTS.  157 

Quia  timet  for  threatened  infringement.     Turrell  v.  Spaetli,  9 

Off.  Gaz.  1163. 
Review,  laches.     Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall. 

805. 
Revivor.     Troy  Iron  and  Nail  Factory  i;.  Winslow,  11  Blatch. 

513. 
What  it  should  show.     Gutta-percha  Comb   Co.   c.   Goodyear 

Rubber  Co.,  3  Sawyer,  542. 
(See   Appeal;    Decree;    Demurrer;    Discovery;    Excep- 
tions ;   Jurisdiction;   Original   Inventor  ;  Parties  ; 

Prior    Judgment;      Repeal;     Suit;    Supplemental 

Bills.) 

BOND. 
(See  Contract;  Defense;  Injunction.) 

BOOKS. 

Compelling  production  of .      Finch  u.  Rikeman,  2  Blatch.  301; 

Turrell  v.  Spaeth,  8  Off.  Gaz.  986. 
Of  parties  as  evidence.     Stanley  v.  Whipple,  2  McLean,  35;   2 

Robb,  1. 
Of  science   to   aid  the   court.      Kneass  v.   Schuylkill  Bank,  4 

Wash.  9;  1  Robb,  303. 

(See  Master.) 

BREACH. 
(See  Contract.) 

BURDEN    OF    PROOF. 

Generally.     Buck  v.  Cobb,  9  Law  Rep.  545. 

Of  infringement.     Francis  v.  Mellor,  5  Fisher,  153;  1  Off.  Gaz. 

48;  Fuller  v.  Yentzer,  4  Otto,  288;  11  Off.  Gaz.  551. 
Of  old  machine.      Ilayden   v.    Suffolk  Manufacturing  Co.,  4 

Fisher,  86. 
Defendant  must  overcome  plaintiff's  prima  facie  case.     Potter  v. 

Stevens,  2  Fisher,  163. 
(See    Infringement;     Invention;     Original     In"\'entor  ; 

Prior   Knowledge;    Prior   Use;   Public   Use;   Want 

OF  Novelty.) 


168  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

CAVEATS. 

Effect  of.     Bell  v.  Daniels,  1  Bond,  212;  1  Fisher,  372. 
Purpose  of.     Phelps  v.  Brown,  4  Blatch.  362;  1  Fisher,  479. 
(See  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

CERTAINTY. 

(See  Uncertainty.) 

CERTIFICATE    OF   COUNSEL. 
(See  Pleading.) 

CERTIFICATE   OF    DIVISION. 
(See  Jurisdiction.) 

CHAMPERTY. 

(See  Contract.) 

CHANGES. 

(See  Construction   of    Patents;   Patentability;   Want 
OF  Novelty.) 

CHARGE. 
(See  Damages;  Jury.) 

CHEAPNESS. 
(See  Want  of  Novelty.) 

CIRCULAR. 

(See  Infringement.) 

CIRCUMSTANCES    OF    PARTIES. 
(See  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  159 

CITATION. 
(See  Error.) 

CITIZENSHIP. 
(See  Jurisdiction.) 

CLAIMS. 

(See  CoNSTRucTiox  of  Patents;  Dedication;  Defense; 
Infringement  ;  Patent  ;  Reissue  ;  Suits  ;  Uncer- 
tainty; Want  of  Novelty.) 

CLEARNESS. 

(See  Construction  of  Patents;  Defective  Specifica- 
tion; Foreign  Patents;  Inventor;  Pleading;  Pub- 
ucations;  Uncertainty.) 

COLLUSION. 
(See  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

COLORABLE    ALTERATIONS. 
(See  Infringement.) 

COMBINATIONS. 

Claims  for.     Forbush  v.  Cook,  2  Fisher,  688. 

New  combinations  generally.  Merrill  v.  Yeoraans,  4  Otto,  568; 
11  Off.  Gaz.  970. 

New  combination  of  old  devices  not  entitled  to  equivalents. 
Yuengling  v.  Johnson,  1  Hughes,  607. 

New  combinations  of  old  parts.  Hale  v.  Stimpson,  2  Fisher, 
565. 

Of  old  elements.     Hamilton  r.  Ives,  6  Fisher,  244. 

Of  old  elements  with  new  results  distinguished  from  aggrega- 
tion. Hailes  y.  Van  Wormer,  7  Blatch.  443;  Williams  w, 
Rome,  Watertown,  and  Ogdensburg  Railroad,  15  Off.  Gaz. 
653. 


160  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Combination  is  an  entirety.      Williams   v.  Rome,  Watertown, 

and  Ogdensburg  Railroad,  15  Off.  Gaz.  653. 
Machines  are  generally  combinations.      Waterbury  Brass  Co.  v. 

Miller,  9  Blatch.  77;  5  Fisher,  48. 
A  part  not  new  can  only  be  claimed  in  combination.      McCor- 

mick  V.  Many,  6  McLean,  539. 
What  are  patentable.     Reckendorfer  v.  Faber,  2  Otto,  347;  10 

Off.  Gaz.  71;  Rees  v.  Gould,  2  Off.  Gaz.  624. 
Two  kinds  of  patentable  combinations.     Lee  v.  Blandy,  1  Bond, 

361;  2  Fisher,  89. 
Rules  applicable  to.     Cahill  v.  Brown,  15  Off.  Gaz.  697. 
(See  Abandonment;  Constuuction  of  Patents;  Infringe- 
ment; Inventor;  Patent;  Patentability;  Reissue.) 

COMMISSIONER. 

"  Acting  commissioner."  Woodworth  v.  Hall,  1  W.  &  M.  248; 
2  Robb,  495. 

Acting  commissioner,  chief  clerk  as.  Validity  of  patents  granted. 
Woodworth  v.  Hall,  1  W.  &  M.  389;  2  Robb,  517. 

Acting  commissioner,  patents  signed  by.  Smith  v.  Mercer,  5 
Penn.  L.  J.  529;  4  West.  L.  J.  49. 

Action  of,  is  prima  facie  evidence  for  or  against.  Yuengling  v. 
Johnson,  1  Hughes,  607. 

Action  of  Board  of  Commissioners,  not  conclusive.  Wilson  v. 
Rousseau,  4  How.  646;  2  Robb,  373. 

His  allovvance  of  patent  is  only  prima  facie  right.  Recken- 
dorfer V.  Faber,  2  Otto,  347;  10  Off.  Gaz.  71. 

Authority  by  special  act  to  extend  a  patent.  Gibson  v.  Harris, 
1  Blatch.  167;  Jordan  v.  Dobson,  2  Abbott,  398;  7  Phila. 
533 ;  4  Fisher,  232. 

Court  will  not  compel  him  to  issue  a  patent.  Hull  v.  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents,  8  Off.  Gaz.  46. 

Decisions  in  interfei-ences.     Bain  v.  Morse,  6  West.  L.  J.  372. 

Weight  of  his  decisions.  French  v.  Rogers,  1  Fisher,  133;  Prov- 
idence Rubber  Co,  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall.  788. 

Discretion  of.     Henry  v.  Providence  Tool  Co.,  14  Off.  Gaz.  855. 

Not  disqualified  from  taking  a  patent  after  office  expires.  Foote 
V.  Frost,  14  Off.  Gaz.  860. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  161 

Duties  of  examiners  in  chief.    Hull  v.  Commissioner  of  Patents, 

7  Oif.  Gaz.  559. 
Jurisdiction  of.     Colt  v.  Young,  2  Blatch.  471 ;  Gear  v.  Gros- 

venor,  1  Holmes,  215;  6  Fisher,  314;  3  Off.  Gaz.  380. 
Power,  generally.     Atlantic  Giant  Powder  Works  v.  California 

Powder  Works,  8  Otto,  12G;    15    Off.  Gaz.  289;    Hull  v. 

Commissioner  of  Patents,  7  Off.  Gaz.  559, 
Powers  generally.     United  States  v.  Thacher,  7  Off.  Gaz.  603. 
Proceedings  in  granting  reissue.      Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite 

Co.  V.  Wetherbee,  3  Cliff.  555;  3  Fisher,  87. 
Province  of.     Conklin  v.  Stafford,  5  Off.  Gaz.  235. 
Action  in  reissue  not  conclusive.     Seymour  v.  Osborne,  3  Fisher, 

555. 
Mandamus,  interfering  patents.     United  States  v.  Thacher,  7 

Off.  Gaz.  603. 
Authority  to  reissue  in  two  patents,  discretion.      Goodyear  v. 

Wait,  5  Blatch.  468;  3  Fisher,  242. 
Commissioner  is  presumed  to  do  his  duty  in  reissuing.     Miller 

and    Peters   Manufacturing  Co.  v.   Du  Brul,   12  Off.  Gaz. 

351. 
Commissioner's  action  on  reissue  is  not  re-examinable  unless  on 

its  face  an  exceeding  his  authority.     Milligan  and  Higgins 

Glue  Co.  V.  Upton,  6  Off.  Gaz.  837;  Seymour  v.  Osborne, 

11  Wall.  516;    Tucker  v.  Tucker  Manufacturing  Co.,  10 

Off.  Gaz.  464. 
Commissioner  has  authority  to  reissue  during  extension.     Wil- 
son V.  Rousseau,  4  How.  646;  2  Robb,  373. 
(See  Abandonment;  Appeal;  Costs;  Interference;  Man- 
damus; Patent  Office;  Reissue.) 

COMMON   LAW. 
(See  Costs  ;  Inventor  ;  Patent.) 

COMMON    SENSE. 
(See  Patentability.) 

COMPANY. 

(See  Assignment.) 

11 


162  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

COMPENSATION. 

(See  Damages.) 

COMPETENCY. 

(See  Experts.) 

COMPLETE. 
(See  Invention;  Want  of  Novelty.) 

COMPOSITION. 
(See  Infringement.) 

COMPOUND. 

(See  Infringement;  Invention;   Reissue;    Uncertainty.) 

CONCEALMENT. 
(See  Preliminary  Injunctions;  Uncertainty.) 

CONCEPTION. 

(See  Invention  ;  Original  Inventor.) 

CONDITIONS. 
(See  Contract;  Waiver.) 

CONJECTURE. 
(See  Damages.) 

CONSENT. 

(See  Abandonment ;  Dedication;  Foreign  Patents;  Non- 
suit; Public  Use;  Reissue.) 

CONSEQUENTIAL. 

(See  Damages.) 


SYNOPSIS     OF     LAW     POINTS.  163 

CONSIDERATION. 
(See  Assignment;  Contract;  License;  Note;  Pleading.) 

CONSPIRACY. 

(See  Injunction.) 

CONSTRUCTION    OF    PATENTS. 

Is  for  the  court.  Davoll  v.  Brown,  1  W.  &  M.  ,53;  2  Robb,  30-3; 
Emerson  o.  Hogg,  2  Blatcli.  1;  Jackson  i\  Allen,  120  Mass. 
64;  Johnson  v.  Root,  1  Fisher,  351;  Mabie  v.  Haskell,  2 
Cliff.  507;  Parker  v.  Hulme,  1  Fisher,  44;  Poppenhusen  v. 
New  York  Gutta-percha  Comb  Co.,  2  Fisher,  62;  Serrell  v. 
Collins,  4  Blatch.  61;  1  Fisher,  289;  &c. 

Liberally  construed.  Francis  v.  Mellor,  5  Fisher,  153;  1  Oil'. 
Gaz.  48;  Goodyear  i'.  Berry,  2  Bond,  189;  3  Fisher,  439; 
Jones  V.  Merrill,  8  Off.  Gaz.  401;  Mann  o.  Bayliss,  10  Off. 
Gaz.  78y;  Parker  v.  Stiles,  5  McLean,  44;  Pottery.  Hol- 
land, 4  Blatch.  238;  1  Fisher,  382;  Schillinger  v.  Gunther, 
14  Blatch.  152;  U  Off.  Gaz.  831;  Sickels  c.  Gloucester 
Manufacturing  Co.,  1  Fisher,  222;  Smith  v.  Elliott,  9 
Blatch.  400;  5  Fisher,  315;  1  Off.  Gaz.  331;  Smith  v. 
O'Connor,  2  Sawyer,  461;  6  Fisher,  409;  4  Off.  Gaz.  633; 
Turrill  v.  Michigan  Southern  and  Northern  Indiana  Rail- 
road, 1  Wall.  491;  Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Nixon, 
9  Off.  Gaz.  091 ;  AVaterbury  Brass  Co.  v.  New  York  and 
Brooklyn  Brass  Co.,  3  Fisher,  43;  &c. 

Strict  construction.     Trader  v.  Messmore,  7  Off.  Gaz.  385. 

Limited  by  state  of  the  art.  Blaisdell  c.  Tufts,  15  Off.  Gaz. 
881 ;  Burden  o.  Corning,  2  Fisher,  477 ;  Clark  v.  Kennedy 
Manufacturing  Co.,  14  Blatch.  79;  11  Off.  Gaz.  67:  Clark 
V.  Scott,  9  Blatch.  301 ;  5  Fisher,  245;  2  Off.  Gaz.  4;  Pike  v. 
Providence  and  Worcester  Railroad,  1  Holmes,  445;  6  Off. 
Gaz.  575;  Pitts  v.  Wemple,  1  Bissell,  87;  2  Fisher,  10. 

Patents  are  not  monopolies.  Parker  v.  Stiles,  5  McLean,  44; 
Seymour  i'.  Osborne,  11  Wall.  516;  Singer  v.  Walniesley, 
1  Fisher,  558;  Turrill  v.  Michigan  Southern  and  Northern 
Indiana  Railroad,  1  Wall.  491. 


164  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Relation  of  inventor  to  the  public.  Allen  v.  Hunter,  6  McLean, 
303;  Attorney-General  v.  Runiford  Chemical  Works,  9  Off. 
Gaz.  10G2. 

Theory  of  patentee  is  of  no  account.  Foss  v.  Herbert,  1  Bissell, 
121;  2  Fisher,  31. 

Gradual  growth  of  inventions.  Chicago  and  Northwestern 
Railroad  v.  Sayles,  7  Otto,  554;  15  Off.  Gaz.  243. 

Presumption  of  law.     Geier  v.  Goetinger,  7  Off.  Gaz.  563. 

Weight  of  prior  decisions  on  the  patent's  construction.  Good- 
year V.  Berry,  2  Bond,  189;  3  Fisher,  439;  Many  v.  Sizer, 

1  Fisher,  31;  Turrill  r.  Illinois  Centi-al  Railroad,  3  Bissell, 
66;  3  Fisher,  330. 

Technical  terms.  Estabrook  v.  Dunbar,  10  Oft'.  Gaz.  909 ; 
Rubber  Coated  Harness  Trimming  Co.  v.  Welling,  7  Otto, 
7;  13  Off.  Gaz.  727. 

Drawings  and  specification  together.  Hoggy.  Emerson,  6  How. 
437;  2  Robb,  655;  Hogg  v.  Emerson,  11  How.  587. 

Whole  taken  together.  Sarven  v.  Hall,  11  Blatch.  295;  6  Fisher, 
495;  4  Off.  Gaz.  666. 

Claims  must  be  regarded  distinct  from  specification.  Merrill  v. 
Yeomans,  4  Otto,  568;  11  Off.  Gaz.  970. 

Specification  is  addressed  to  those  skilled  in  the  art.  Tilghman 
V.  Mitchell,  9  Blatch.  1;  4  Fisher,  599;  W^oodward  v.  Mor- 
rison, 1  Holmes,  124;  5  Fisher,  357;  2  Off.  Gaz.  120. 

Construed  for  the  benefit  of  the  inventor.  W^oodman  v.  Stimp- 
son,  3  Fisher,  98. 

Fair  interpretation  of  the  words.  Welling  v.  Rubber  Coated 
Harness  Trimming  Co.,  7  Off.  Gaz.  606. 

Must  be  according  to  the  language.  Keystone  Bridge  Co.  v. 
Phoenix  Iron  Co.,  5  Otto,  274;  12  Off.  Gaz.  980. 

Must  be  according  to  the  claims.  Dennis  v.  Cross,  3  Bissell, 
389;  6  Fisher,  138;  Kidd  v.  Spence,  4  Fisher,  37;  Meissner 
V.  Devoe  Manufacturing  Co.,  9  Blatch.  363;  5  Fisher,  285; 

2  Off.  Gaz.  545  ;  Rich  v.  Close,  8  Blatch.  41 ;  4  Fisher,  279. 
Court  construes  patents,  not  corrects  them.     Kittle  ii.  Merriam, 

2  Curtis,  475. 
Joint  patent  modified  by  prior  patent  of  one  joint  inventor. 
Hopkins  and  Dickinson  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Parker  and 
Whipple  Manufacturing  Co.,  14  Blatch.  396;  14  Off.  Gaz.  3. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  1G5 

Patentee's  construction.     Trader  v.  ^Messmore,  7  Off.  Gaz.  385. 
Patents  which  interfere  are  confined  to  particular  shape.     Rapp 

V.  Bard,  1  Fisher,  190. 
Construction  by  Supreme  Court.     Turrill  v.  Illinois  Centi-al  Rail- 
road, 5  Bissell,  344. 
Construction  of   claims.      Francis  v.  Mellor,  5  Fisher,  153;  1 

Off.  Gaz.  48;  Carlton  v.  Bokee,  17  Wall.  4G3. 
Claims  for  whole  and  its  parts.     Foss  v.  Herbert,  1  Bissell,  121 ; 

2  Fisher,  31. 
Word  "  combination."     Burden  v.  Corning,  2  Fisher,  477. 
Claims  for  results.     Henderson  v.  Cleveland  Co-operative  Stove 

Co.,  12  Off.  Gaz.  4. 
Claims  for  art  and  manufacture.     Merrill  v»  Yeomans,  1  Holmes, 

331;  5  Off.  Gaz.  267. 
Fairly  and  liberally,  and  not  subjected  to  over-nice  or  critical 

refinements.      Ames   ik   Howard,   1    Sumn.  482;    1   Robb, 

689. 
So  that  patent  will  be  coextensive  with  invention.     Andrews  v. 

Carman,  13  Blatch.  307;  11  Off.  Gaz.  1011. 
Liberal,  because  to  promote  science  and  the  useful  arts.     Blan- 

chard  v.  Sprague,  3  Sumn.  535;  1  Robb,  734. 
Changes  slight  or  elementary.     Cornell  v.  American  Bush  Co., 

7  Bis.sell,  346;  11  Off.  Gaz.  331. 
Is  for  court  where   no  parol   evidence   to   explain   is   offered. 

Davoll  V.  Brown,  1  W.  &  M.  53;  2  Robb,  303. 
Liberal,  but  patent  must  be  clear.     Davoll  v.  Brown,  1  W.  &  M. 

53;  2  Robb,  303. 

(See  Assignment;  Infringement.) 

CONTEMPT. 
(See  Injunction.) 

CONTRACT. 

Accord  and  satisfaction.     Burdell  v.  Denig,  2  Fisher,  588. 

To  assign,   annulled,  no  action  lies.     Newbury  v.   Bay  State 

Screw  Co.,  7  Allen,  257. 
Bond,  void  patent,  no   consideration.      Brown  v.  Wright,  17 

Ark.  9. 


iC6  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

Breach  by  suing  out  injunction.     Sailings  v.  Goodyear,  36  Mich. 

31e3. 

Broken   by  plaintiff,  effect  on  his  rights.      Stanley  Rule  and 

Level  Co.  v.  Bailey,  U  Blatch.  510. 
Cancelling.     Brooks  v.  Stolley,  3  McLean,  523;  2  Robb,  281. 
Void  for  champerty  and  maintenance.     Gregerson  v.  Imlay,  4 

Blatch.  503. 
Conditions  precedent.     Young  v.  Hunter,  6  N.  Y.  203. 
Implied  covenants.     Wilson  v.  Marlow,  66  111.  385. 
Covenant,    consideration,    defenses    allowed,    &c.      Wilder   v. 

Adams,  2  W.  &  M.  329. 
Unreasonable  delay  to  elect.    McBurney  v.  Goodyear,  11  Cush. 

(Mass.)  569. 
As  a  defense.     Kittle  v.  Frost,  9  Blatch.  214;  5  Fisher,  213. 
Estoppel  to  dispute  validity.     Brooks  v.  Morehouse,  13  Off.  Gaz. 

499. 
Parol  evidence  to  vary.     Hollida  v.  Hunt,  70  111.  109;  Pierce  v. 

Wilson,  34  Ala.  596. 
Executed  by  attorney.     Bellas  v.  Hays,  5  S.  &  R.  (Penn.)  427. 
Partly  executed.     Gibson  v.  Barnard,  1  Blatch.  388. 
Effect  of  agreement  on  extension.     Union  Manufacturing  Co.  v. 

Lounsbury,  42  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  125. 
Interpretation.     Baker  v.  Mason,  3  R.  I.  45;  Goodyear  Dental 

Vulcanite  Co.   v.  Gardner,    3    Cliff.    408;   4   Fisher,  224; 

Wetherill  v.  Passaic  Zinc  Co.,  6  Fisher,  50;   9  Phila.  385; 

2  Off.  Gaz.  471. 
As  a  license.     Whitney  v.  Graves,  13  Off.  Gaz.  455. 
Licensee's  stamping  goods  acknowledges  they  were  made  under 

the  contract.     Jones  v.  Van  Kirk,  2  Fisher,  586. 
Misrepresentations,  means  of  knowledge.     Hess  v.  Young,  59 

Ind.  379. 
Money  paid  under.     Case  v.  Morey,  1  N.  H.  347. 
Papers,  whether  they  amount  to  contract.     Burdell  v.  Denig, 

2  Otto,  716. 
Parol.     Davy  v.  Morgan,  56  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  218. 
Parol.     Statute  of  Frauds.     Jenkins  v.  Abbotts,  54  N.  H.  447; 

Marston  v.  Swett,  4  Hun  (N.  Y.),  153;  6  Th.  &  C.  (iST.  Y.) 

534  ;  Sherjnan  v.  Champlain  Transportation  Co.,  31  Vt.  162. 
Parol  negotiations  not  included.     Edwards  v.  Richards,  Wright 

(Ohio),  596. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  167 

Parol  warranty.     Galpin  v.   Atwater,  29  Conn.  93;  Joliffe  v. 

Collins,  21  Mo.  338. 
To  pay  price.     Avery  v.  Bushnell,  123  Mass.  349. 
Specific  performance.     Ely  v.  McKay,  12  Allen  (Mass.),  323; 

Nesmith  v.  Calvert,  1  W.  &  M.  31;  2  Robb,  311. 
Plaintiff  must  show  performance  on  his  side.     McDougall  v. 

Fogg,  3  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  387. 
Plaintiff  bound  by.     Troy  Iron  and  Nail  Factory  v.  Corning,  1 

Blatch.  467;  6  Fisher,  87. 
Reassignment,  time  to  try  and  to  elect.     Young  v.  Hunter,  6 

N.  Y.  203. 
Before  reissue  applies  after.     McBurney  v.  Goodyear,  11  Cush. 

(Mass.)  569. 
Remedy,  if  no  infringement  and  no  violation  of  contract,  no 
*       remedy.      Western  Telegraph  Co.  v.  Magnetic  Telegraph 

Co.,  21  How.  4.56. 
Representations,  performance.     Serviss   v.  Stockstill,  30  Ohio 

St.  418. 
Rescission.     Elkins  v.  Kenyon,  34  Wise.  93  ;  Gatling  v.  Newell, 

9  Ind.  572. 
Rescission,  false  representations.     Hall  v.  Orvis,  35  Iowa,  366; 

Newell  V.  Gatling,  7  Ind.  147. 
Rescission,  fraud.     Warren  v.  Cole,  15  Mich.  265. 
Rescission  in  equity,  fraud,  laches.    Pierce  v.  AVilson,  34  Ala.  596. 
Rescission,  worthless  patent  no  ground  for.     West  v.  Morrison, 

2  Bibb  (Ky.),  376. 
Right  to  rescind.     Hartshorn  v.  Day,  19  How.  211. 
Restraint  of  trade.     Billings  v.  Ames,  32  Mo.  265 ;  Kinsman  v. 

Parkhurst,   18  How.  289;  Morse  Twist  Drill,   &c.  Co.  v. 

Morse,  103  Mass.  73. 
Royalty,  violation  of  contract  for.     Union  Manufacturing  Co.  v. 

Lounsbury,  41  N.  Y.  363. 
Royalty,  void  patent  no  consideration  for.     Jenkins  v.  Abbotts, 

54  N.  H.  447. 
Worthless  note,  total  failure  of  consideration.    Joliffe  v.  Collins, 

21  Mo.  338. 
(See  Admissions;    Assignment;    Corporation;  Damages; 

Employe  ;    Estoppel  ;    Evidence  ;   Infringement  ;    In- 
junction; Jurisdiction;  Patent;  Sale;  Statutes.) 


168  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

COXTROVERSY. 
(See  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

CONVENIENCE. 

(See  Want  of  Novelty.) 

COPARTNERS. 
(See  Corporation  ;  Joint  Owners.) 

COPIES. 
(See  Assignment  ;  Costs  ;  Evidence  ;  Patent.) 

CORPORATION. 

Contracts  by  chairman.     Lightner  v.  Brooks,  2  Cliff.  287. 
County  Commissioners  are  quasi  corporation,  and  not  liable  for 

infringement.     Jacobs  v.  Commissioners  of  Hamilton  Co., 

1  Bond,  500;  4  Fisher,  81. 
Corporation  sued  as  copartners,  may  be  amended.     Needham  v. 

Washburn,  7  Off.  Gaz.  649. 
Domicile    not  necessarily  stated.     National   Hay  Rake  Co.  v. 

Harbert,  2  Weekly  Notes,  100. 
Existence  of.     Dorsey  Revolving  Harvester  Rake  Co.  v.  Marsh, 

6  Fisher,  387. 
Foreign  corporations.     Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co. 

V.  Sloat,  2  Fisher,  112. 
Foreign  corporation  found  in  State.     Williams  v.  Empire  Trans- 
portation Co.,  14  Off.  Gaz.  523. 
Indiana  law  of  foreign  corporations.     Walter  A.  Wood,  &c.  Co. 

V.  CaldweU,  54  Ind.  270. 
Liability  in  tort.     Jacobs  v.  Commissioners  of  Hamilton  County, 

1  Bond,  .500;    4   Fisher,  81;    Lightner  v.  Brooks,  2  Cliff. 

287. 
As  plaintiff.     Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Wetherbee,  2 

cuff.  555;  3  Fisher,  87. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  169 

Purchase  of  patent  before  issue  by  corporation  is  protected  by 
statute.  McClurg  v.  Kingsland,  1  IIow.  202;  2  llobb, 
105. 

Receiver  of,  has  exclusive  right  to  use  its  patents.  Woven 
Tape  Skirt  Co.,  In  re,  12  Ilun  (N.  Y.),  111. 

Where  sued.     Jones  v.  O.sgood,  6  Blatch.  435;  3  Fisher,  591. 
(See  Infrixgemext;  Jurisdictiox;  New  Trial.) 

COSTS. 

Allowance  of.     Ilovey  v.  Stevens,  3  W.  &  M.  17;  2  Robb,  567; 

Peek  V.  Frame,  5  Fisher,  211. 
When  not  allowed.     Emerson  v.  Peddie,  8  Blatch.  446;  4  Fisher, 

493. 
What  are  allowable.     Hussey  v.  Bradley,  5  Blatch.  210. 
None  by  common  law.     Kneass  i'.    Schuylkill  Bank,  4  Wash. 

lOG. 
Right  to,  discretion  of  court.     Hathaway  v.  Roach,  2  W.  &  M. 

63. 
Taxation  of.      Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.    v.  Osgood,  13 

Off.  Gaz.  325. 
Taxation,  copies  of  patents.      Hathaway  v.  Roach,  2  W.  &  M. 

63  ;  Woodruff  v.  Barney,  1  Bond,  528;  2  Fisher,  244. 
Taxation,  docket  fees.     Doughty  v.   West,    Bradley,  and  Gary 

Manufacturing  Co.,  4  Fisher,  318. 
Taxation,  marshal's  fees  for  witnesses  out  of  State.      Parker  i\ 

Bigler,  1  Fisher,  28-5. 
Taxation,  Ma.ster's  and  Commissioner's  fees.     Doughty  c.  We.st, 

Bradley,  and  Gary  Manufacturing  Co.,  4  Fisher,  518. 
Taxation,  models.     Hathaway  v.  Roach,  2  W.  &  M.  63;  Parker 

V.  Bigler,  1  Fisher,  285;  Woodruff  c.  Barney,  1  Bond,  528; 

2  Fisher,  241. 
Taxation,    printing   testimony     not    included.       Spaulding   v. 

Tucker,  Deady,  649 ;  4  Fisher,  633. 
Taxation,  witness  fees  during  few  days'  suspension.     Hathaway 

V.  Roach,  2  W.  &  M.  63. 
Taxation,  witness's  travel,  out  of  State.      Spaulding  r.  Tucker, 

Deady,  649;  4  Fisher,  633;  Woodruff  v.   Barney,  1   Bond, 

528;  2  Fisher,  244. 

(See  Appeal;  Disclaimer.) 


170  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

COUNSEL    FEES. 
(See  Damages.) 

COURT. 

Circuit  Courts  form  one  system,  and  are  bound  by  previous  de- 
cisions. Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Willis,  7  Off. 
Gaz.  41. 

Deference  due  decisions  of  Supreme  Court.  Kirby  v.  Dodge 
and  Stevenson  Manufacturing  Co. ,  10  Blatch.  307 ;  6  Fisher, 
156;  3  Off.  Gaz.  181. 

Judgment  of  Supreme  Court  on  facts.  Seymour  v.  Marsh,  6 
Fisher,  115;  9  Phila.  380;  2  Off.  Gaz.  675. 

Opinions  of  other  courts.  Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v. 
Nixon,  6  Fisher,  402;  4  Off.  Gaz.  31. 

Powers  of  Circuit  Courts.  Goodyear  v.  Providence  Rubber  Co., 
2  Cliff.  351 ;  2  Fisher,  499. 

No  power  to  regulate  plaintiff's  proceedings  in  other  courts. 
Rumfoi-d  Chemical  Works  o.  Ilecker,  11  Blatch.  552;  5  Off. 
Gaz.  644. 

Rulings  by,  before  defendant's  case  is  in.  McMahon  v.  Tyng, 
14  Allen  (Mass.),  167. 

When  State  court  is  proper  tribunal  to  sue  in.  Aiken  u.  Man- 
chester Print  Works,  2  Cliff.  435. 

(See  Construction  of  Patents;  D.a.mages;  Decree;  Ju- 
risdiction; New  Trial;  Preliminary  Injunction; 
Reissue;  Repeal;  Suits;  Uncertainty;  Usefulness.) 

COURT    OF    DISTRICT    OF    COLUMBIA. 
(See  Jurisdiction.) 

CREDIBILITY. 

(See  Evidence;  Witnesses.) 

CREDITORS, 
(See  Assignment.) 

CROSS-BILL. 
What  constitutes.     Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall. 
807. 


SYNOPSIS     OF    LAW     POINTS.  171 

Without  notice,    must   be   stricken  from    the  files.      "Webster 

Loom  Co.  V.  Short,  10  Off.  Gaz.  1019. 
New  parties  by.     Brandon  Manufacturing  Co.    v.    Prime,    14 

Blatch.  371. 


DAMAGES. 

Actual  damages  are  profits  defendant  has  made.     Conover  v. 

Rapp,  4  Fisher,  57. 
Actual  damages,  license  fee.     Seymour-  v.  McCormick,  16  How. 

480. 
Actual  damages  are   defendant's  profits,  presumption  of   law. 

Wilbur  v.  Beecher,  2  Blatch.  132. 
Cannot  exceed  ad  (Jamnuni  of  writ.     Winans  v.  Xew  York  and 

Harlem  Railroad,  4  Fisher,  1. 
Agreed  on  by  contract.     Oliver  v.  Morgan,  10  Hei&k.  (Tenn.) 

332. 
In  contract.     Weed  v.  Draper,   99  Mass.   53;  Weed  r.  Draper, 

104  Mass.  28. 
Counsel  fees.     Bancroft  v.  Acton,  7  Blatch.  505;  Teese  v.  Hunt- 
ingdon, 23  How.   2;  Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall.  429;  1 

Robb,  28. 
Counsel  fees  allowed  by  jury.      Boston  Manufacturing  Co.  v. 

Fiske,  2  Mason,  119;  1  Robb,  320;    Stimpson  v.  Railroad, 

1  Wall.  Jr.  164;  2  Robb,  593. 
Depreciation  in  price.     Billings  i'.  Ames,  32  Mo.  265. 
Excessive.     Alden  v.  Dewey,  1  Story,  336;  2  Robb,  17;  Allen  v. 

Blunt,  2  \\.  &  M.  121;  2  Robb,  530;  Russell  v.  Place,  9 

Blatch.  173;  5  Fi.sher,   134;  Whitney  v.  Emmett,  1  Bald. 

303;  1  Robb,  567. 
Mast  be  plainly  and  largely  beyond  injury  inflicted  to  be  ex- 
cessive.    Aiken  v.  Bemis,  3  W.  &  M.  348;  2  Robb,  644.     " 
Improvement  by  defendant  charged   and   allowed.       American 

Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  City  of  Elizabeth,  6  Oft".  Gaz.  764. 
Profits  by  improvements.     City  of  Elizabeth  v.  Pavement  Co., 

7  Otto,  126. 
Value  of  improvements.     Garretson  v.  Clark,  14  Off.  Gaz.  485. 
Defendant  is  entitled  to  the  profits  of  his  improvement.     Mason 

V.  Graham,  23  WaU.  261;  7  Off.  Gaz.  833. 


172  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Increasing.     Bell  v.  McCulloch,  1  Fisher,  380;  Guyon  v.  Serrell, 

1  Blatch.  244. 

For  aggravated  conduct  of  defendant.     Peek  v.  Frame,  9  Blatch. 

194;  5  Fisher,  113. 
Amount  of    compensation    for   infringement  by   government. 

Hubbell  V.  United  States,  5  N.  &  H.  1. 
Without  injunction.      Vaughan    v.   East  Tennessee,  Virginia, 

and  Georgia  Raih-oad,  11  Off.  Gaz.  789. 
Interest  not  given.     Silsby  v.  Foote,  20  How.  378. 
Jury  may  give  interest  if  they   choose.      Tatham  v.  Leroy,  2 

Blatch.  474. 
Not  infringing  wantonly,  is  free  from  paying  interest.     Mowry 

V.  Whitney,  14  Wall.  620;  5  Fisher,  494;  1  Off.  Gaz.  492. 
Unwitting  infringement,  only  compensatory  damages.       Parker 

V.  Corbin,  4  McLean,  462;  2  Robb,  716. 
Liberal.     Foote  v.  Silsby,  1  Blatch.  445. 
To  get  at  damages  jury  must  find  facts.     Goodyear  v.  Bishop, 

2  Fisher,  154. 

Interest  on  profits  not  generally  given.     Littlefield  v.  Perry,  21 

Wall.  205;  7  Off.  Gaz,  964. 
Reserved  up  to  time  of  conveyance.     Boomer  v.  United  Power 

Pre.ss  Co.,  13  Blatch.  107. 
Courts   may   increase   to   any   amount   not  more  than   treble. 

Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fabrics  Co. ,  3  Cliff.  356 ;  5  Fisher,  90. 
Profits  overestimated  by  Master.  Cawood  Patent,  4  Otto,  695. 
Damages  must  be  found  from  evidence,  not  conjectui-e.     Carter 

V.  Baker,  1   Sawyer,  512;  4  Fisher,  404;    Philp  v.   Nock, 

17  Wall.  460. 

In  finding  profits,  saving  by  use  is  not  balanced  against  de- 
fendant's losses.  Conoverr.  Mers,  11  Blatch.  197;  6  Fisher, 
506. 

Under  contract,  profits  not  really  made.     Kinsman  v.  Parkhurst, 

18  How.  289. 

Before  recording  patent.     Emerson  v.  Ilogg,  2  Blatch.  1. 
Decree  for  damages  of  license  fee   gives  right  to   use  for  life  of 

patent.     Emerson  v.  Sinim,  6  Fisher,  281 ;  3  Off.  Gaz.  293; 

Sickels  V.  Borden,  3  Blatch.  535. 
Recoupment.     Gold  v.  Ives,  29  Conn.   119;    Green  v.   Willard, 

Improved  Barrel  Co.,  1  Mo.  App.  202. 


SYNOPSIS     OF    LAW     POINTS.  173 

Unliquiflated.     Green  v.  Willard  Improved  Barrel  Co.,  1  Mo. 

App.  202. 
Given  contrary   to  charge.      Johnson   v.  Root,  2  Cliff.  108;  2 

Fisher,  291. 
Postponed  till  after  acconnting.     Magic  Ruffle  Co.  i;.  Elm  City 

Co.,  13  Blatch.  151;  8  Off.  Gaz.  773. 
Trebling   is   in    discretion   of   the   court,   aggravated   conduct. 

^Merchant  ;;.  Lewis,  1  Bond,  172. 
Treble  by  sect.  U  of  1836.     Motte  v.  Bennett,  2  Fisher,  642. 
Master's  construction  of  patent  too  narrow.    Ruggles  r.  Eddy,  12 

Off.  Gaz.  716. 
Reasons   for  trebling.      Schwarzel  v.  Holmshade,  2  Bond,  29; 

3  Fisher,  116. 
Not  trebled  when  reasonable  contest.     Smith  v.  O'Connor,  2 

Sawyer,  461;  6  Fisher,  469;  4  Off.  Gaz.  633. 
What  actual  damages  are.     Stephens  v.  Felt,  2  Blatch.  37. 
Measure  of. 

For  improvement  is  not  whole  machine.     Bedford  v.  Hunt, 

1  Mason,  302;  1  Robb,  148. 
Established  royalty.     Birdsall  v.  Coolidge,  3  Otto,  d4;  10 

Off.  Gaz.  748. 
Saving  by  use  of  patented  machine.      Black  v.  Thorne,  12 

Blatch.  20;  7  Off.  Gaz.  176. 
Gains  and  profits  the  proper  measure.     Brady  v.  Atlantic 

Works,  15  Off.  Gaz.  965. 
Difference  in  value  between  new  and  old.     Brodie  v.  Ophir 
Silver,  &c.  Co.,  4  Fisher,  137  ;  Earl  v.  Sawyer,  4  Mason, 
1 ;  1  Robb,  490. 
Immediate,  not  remote  and  consequential.     Buerk  v.  Im- 

hauser,  14  Blatch.  19;  10  Off.  Gaz.  907. 
Profits  defendant  made  or  ought,  not  what  plaintiff  might. 

Burdell  v.  Denig,  2  Otto,  716. 
Price  he  has  sold  machine,  no  criterion.     Campbell  v.  Bar- 
clay, 5  Bissell,  179. 
Plaintiff's  loss  not  defendant's  gains.     Cowing  v.  Rumsey, 

8  Blatch.  36  ;  4  Fisher,  275. 
Whatever  profits  or  benefit  defendant  has  received.    Cox  v. 

Griggs,  2  Fisher,  174. 
Profits  defendant  made,  not  might  have.     Dean  v.  Mason,  20 
How.  198. 


174  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Measure  of —  continued. 

License  fee.     Goodyear  v.  Bishop,  2  Fisher,  154. 

Patents  are  so  varied  there  can  be  no  fixed  rule.     Graham 

V.  Mason,  1  Hohnes,  88;    5  Fisher,  290;  1  Off.  Gaz. 

609. 
Sound  disci-etion  of  tlie  jury.     Hawes  v.  Gage,  5  Off.  Gaz. 

494. 
Law  gives  defendant's  profits  if  they  can  be  ascertained. 

Hays  V.  Sulsor,  1  Bond,  279 ;  1  Fisher,  532. 
Price  paid  for  license  may  be  considered  by  jury.     Hogg  v. 

Emerson,  11  How.  587. 
Deduction  of  proper  part  of  general  expenses  of  general 

dealer.      Hitchcock   v.    Tremaine,    9   Blatch.    385 ;    5 

Fisher,  310. 
Different  rules  in  law  and  equity.     Hudson  v.  Draper,  4 

Fisher,  256 ;  Vaughan  v.  Central  Pacific  Railroad,  4 

Sawyer,  280. 
Only  profits  made  by  plaintiff's  improvement.      Ingels  v. 

Mast,  6  Fisher,  415;  7  Off.  Gaz.  836. 
Lie  in  discretion  of  jury.     Judson  v.  Lloore,  1  Bond,  285; 

1  Fisher,  544. 
Compensation  for  injury  sustained.     Kneass  v.  Schuylkill 

Bank,  4  Wash.  9;  1  Robb,  303;  Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v. 

Douglass,  2    Fisher,    330;   Many    v.    Sizer,   1    Fisher, 

17. 
Cases  classified  as  having  different  measures.     Livingston 

V.  Jones,  3  Wall.  Jr.  330;  2  Fisher,  207. 
Profits  of  defendant  may  be  more  or  less  than  damage  to 

plaintiff.     Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Elm  City  Co.,  14  Blatch. 

109;  11  Off.  Gaz.  501. 
Liability  for  royalty  only  for  number  actually  sold.     Marsh 

V.  Dodge,  4  Hun  (N.  Y.),  278;  6  Th.  &  C.   (N.  Y.) 

508. 
Compensatory  where  careless   infringer  made   no   profits. 

Marsh  V.  Seymour,  7  Otto,  348 ;   13  Off.  Gaz.  723. 
Actual  damages  and  profits  he  would   have   made.     Mc- 

Cormick  v.  Seymour,  2  Blatch.  240. 
Depends  upon  whether  plaintiff  sells  rights  or  not.     Mc» 

Cormick  v.  Seymour,  3  Blatch.  209. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  175 

Measure  of —  continued. 

Patented  and  unpatented  articles   should   not  be  lumped 

together.     Mulford  v.  Pearce,  14  Blatch.  141 ;  11  Off. 

Gaz.  741. 
Rule  at  law  is  license  fee,  if  there  is  one.     Packet  Co.  v. 

Sickles,  19  Wall.  611. 
One-fourth  of  profits  in  special  case.     Parker  v.  Bamker, 

6  McLean,  031. 
Expenses  of  litigation  not  generally  included.     Parker  v. 

Huhne,  1  Fisher,  44 ;  AVarren  v.  Cole,  1.5  Mich.  265. 
Profits  of  defendant  and  loss  of  plaintiff.     Philp  v.  Nock, 

17  Wall.  460. 
Expense  of  suit  included.     Pierson  v.  Eagle  Screw  Co.,  3 

Story,  402;  2  Robb,  268. 
Actual  not  vindictive.     Pitts  v.  Hall,  2  Blatch.  229. 
Special  or  general  under  the  statute.     Runiford  Chemical 

Works  V.  Hecker,  11  Off.  Gaz.  330. 
Saving  by  use,  over  any  thing  else  he  could  adopt.     Serrell 

V.  Collins,  1  Fisher,  289. 
License  fee,  may  be  small  to  introduce.     Sickles  v.  Borden, 

3  Blatch.  535. 
Full  amount  of  profits,  no  fixed  royalties.     Spaulding  v. 

Page,  1  Sawyer,  702;  4  Fisher,  641. 
Damages  without  license  fee,  only  for  time  of  infringement, 

not  of  patent.     Suffolk  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Hayden, 

3  Wall.  315. 
Saving  by  use  of  plaintiff's  process.     Tilghman  v.  Mitchell, 

9  Blatch.  1 ;  4  Fisher,  599. 
Expenses  and  charges  allowed  in  finding  net  profits.     Troy 

Iron  and  Nail  Factory  v.  Corning,  6  Blatch.  328 ;    3 

Fisher,  497. 
Apportionment  of  profits.     Whitney  v.  Mowry,  4  Fisher, 

141 ;  Whitney  v.  Mowry,  4  Fisher,  207. 
Actual.     Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall.  478;  1  Robb,  40. 
Profits  and   damages,  salaries   of   defendants   not   profits. 

Williams  v.  Leonard,  9  Blatch.  476;  5  Fisher,  381. 
Amount  of  profits  is  the  practice  in  damages.     Wintermute 

V.  Redington,  1  Fisher,  239. 
If  profits  e  ceed  license  fee,  not  limited  to  it.     Wooster  v. 

Tayl    ,  14  Blatch.  403. 


176  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Nominal.     Burdell  v.   Denig,  2   Fisher,  588 ;  Gold  v.  Ives,  29 
Conn.  119 ;  Gould's  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Cowing,  14 
Blatch.  315;  12  Off.  Gaz.  9i2 ;  Ingersoll  v.  Benham, 
14  Blatch.  541  ;  13  Off.  Gaz.  966. 
When   plaintiff    fails    to   prove    damages    in   accounting. 
Gould's  JNIanufacturing  Co.  v.  Cowing,  12  Blatch.  243 ; 
8  Off.  Gaz.  277. 
Article  not  marked  patented  and  no  notice  proved.     Mc- 
Comb  I'.  Brodie,  1  Woods,  153 ;  5  Fisher,  384  ;  2  Off. 
Gaz.  117. 
Where  profit  by  plaintiff's  improvement  cannot  be  shown. 
Schillinger  v.  Gunther,  14  Off.  Gaz.  733. 
Reference  to  Master,  extent  of  infringement  is  question.     Tur- 

rill  V.  Illinois  Central  Railroad,  5  Bissell,  344. 
Under    the   statute.      Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite   Co.    v.  Van 

Antwerp,  9  Off.  Gaz.  497. 
Use  by  defendant  is  evidence  of  utility,  and  subjects  to  damages. 

Simpson  v.  Mad  River  Railroad,  6  McLean,  603. 
(See  Inventor;   New  Trial;   Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

DATE. 
(See  Application  ;  Assignment.) 

DEATH. 
(See  Partners.) 

DECEIT. 
(See  Fraud.) 

DECISION. 

(See  Commissioner;  Construction  of  Patents;  Court; 
Issue;  Jury;  Preliminary  Injunctions  ;  Prior  Judg- 
ment; Reissue.) 

DECLARATION. 

Amending  by  adding  new  count.     Peck  v.  Bacon,  18  Conn.  377. 
Bad,  leave  to  amend.     Peterson  v.  Wooden,  3  McLean,  248;  2 
Robb,  116. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  177 

What  it  must  contain.     Cutting  v.  Myers,  4  Wash.  220;  1  Robb, 
159. 

Taken  as  admitted  where  no  plea  is  filed.     Parker  v.  Bamker, 
6  McLean,  631. 

Time  stated  in,  binds  plaintiff  if  material.     Eastman  v.  Bod- 
fish,  1  Story,  528;  2  Robb,  72. 

Must  show  title.     Gray  v.  James,  Peters,   C.  C.  476 ;  1  Robb, 
140. 

(See  Assignment;  Evidence;  Patent.) 

DECREE. 

Amendments  after  final  decree.     Tremolo  Patent,  23  How.  518. 
Of  affirmance  vacated,  &c.     Gardner  v.  Goodyear  Dental  Vul- 
canite Co.,  6  Fisher,  329;  3  Off.  Gaz.  295. 
Court  will  not  proceed  where  final  decree  cannot  be  reached. 

Florence  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Singer  Sewing  Machine 

Co.,  8  Blatch.  113;  4  Fisher,  329. 
If  granted,  must  be  according  to  prayer  of  the  bill.     Livingston 

V.  Woodworth,  15  How.  546. 
Interlocutory,  practice.     Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fabrics  Co., 

3  Cliff.  356 ;  5  Fisher,  90. 
Pro  coiifesso,  motion  to  file  answer.     Dean  v.  Mason,  20  How. 

198. 
Pro  confesso,  motion  to  set  aside.     Andrews  v.   Denslow,  14 

Blatch.  182. 
Pro  confesso,  not  a  decree  establishing  validity  in  usual  sense. 

Russell  V.  Lathrop,  122  Mass.  300. 
Interlocutory  decree  is  not  res  adjudicatce.     Rumford  Chemical 

Works  V.  Hecker,  10  Off.  Gaz.  289. 
(See  Answer;  Damages;   Ixju>-ction;  I^Iaster's  Report; 
Ple.\ding.) 

DEDICATION. 

Must  be  to  public.     Goodyear  v.  Hills,  3  Fisher,  134;  Good- 
year V.  AVait,  5  Blatch.  468;  3  Fisher,  242. 

A  right  of  the  invent-or.     Kendall  v.  Winsor,  21  How.  322. 

Not  claiming  in  a  later  but  different  application,  is  not.     Suf- 
folk Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Ilayden,  3  Wall.  315. 
12 


178  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Cannot  be  revoked.     Whittemore   v.   Cutter,   1   Gall.  478;   1 

Robb,  40. 
On  sale,  with  consent  of  patentee.     Melius  v.  Silsbee,  4  Mason, 

108;  1  Eobb,  506. 

DEDUCTION. 
(See  Damages.) 

DEED. 
See  Assignment;  Estoppel.) 

DEFECTIVE   SPECIFICATION. 

Admissible  under  general  issue.     Kneass  v.  Schuylkill  Bank,  4 

Wash.  9;  1  Robb,  303. 
Cured  by  verdict.     Gray  v.  James,  Peters  C.  C.  476;    1  Robb, 

140.' 
What  defects   are  fatal.     Union   Paper  Bag   Machine   Co.  v. 

Nixon,  6  Fisher,  402;  4  Off.  Gaz.  31. 
Every  definition  presupposes  some  knowledge.     Smith  v.  O'Con- 
nor, 2  Sawyer,  461 ;  6  Fisher,  469;  4  Off.  Gaz.  633. 
Clear  enough  to  construct  a  machine  by  those  familiar  with 

them.      Brooks   v.   Bicknell,   3    McLean,   250;    2   Robb, 

118. 
Question  of  intent  to  deceive.      Gray  v.  James,  Peters,  C.   C. 

394  ;  1  Robb,  120. 
Not  saying  what  prior  machine  improved  on  is.    Isaacs  v.  Cooper, 

4  Wash.  259 ;  1  Robb,  332. 
Good  description  of  tiling,  but  not  of  how  it  is  made.     Magic 

Ruffle  Co.  V.  Douglass,  2  Fisher,  330. 
Sufficiency  of  specification.     Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  4  McLean,  70. 
Sufficiency  is  determined  by  taking  whole  together.     Howes  v. 

Nute,  4  Fisher,  263. 
May  be   defective  on   its  face,  or  as  shown  by  outside  facts. 

Head  v.  Stevens,  19  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  411. 
(See  Abandonment ;  Assignment;  Demurrer;  Invention; 
Reissue.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  179 


DEFENDANTS. 

District  where  defendant  lives  in  civil  suits.     Chaffee  v.  Hay- 
ward,  20  How.  208. 
Privity  of.     Wells  v.  Jacques,  5  Off.  Gaz.  364. 


DEFENSE. 

Set  up  in  the  answer.  Brown  v.  Hall,  6  Blatch.  401;  3  Fisher, 
531;  Comstock  v.  Sandusky  Seat  Co.,  3  Off.  Gaz.  23; 
Doubleday  v.  Sherman,  3  Fisher,  369 ;  Eureka  Co.  ik 
Bailey  Washing  Machine  Co.,  11  Wall.  488;  Grover  and 
Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Sloat,  2  Fisher,  112;  Guidet 
V.  Barber,  5  Off.  Gaz.  149;  Jordan  v.  Dobson,  2  Abbott, 
398;  7  rhila.  533;  4  Fisher,  232. 

Must  be  set  up  in  answer  to  be  availed  of.  Wallace  i\  Holmes, 
9  Blatch.  65;  5  Fisher,  37  ;  1  Off.  Gaz.  117;  Wonson  v. 
Peterson,  13  Off.  Gaz.  549. 

Must  be  set  up  in  answer,  propriety  of  the  rule.  Russell  and 
Erwin  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Mallory,  10  Blatch.  140;  5 
Fisher,  632 ;  2  Off.  Gaz.  495. 

Court  cannot  notice  defenses  not  set  up.  Bates  v.  Coe,  8  Otto, 
31 ;  15  Off.  Gaz.  337  ;  United  States  and  Foreign  Salaman- 
der Felting  Co.  v.  Haven,  3  Dillon,  131 ;  9  Off.  Gaz.  253. 

Notice  of  defense.  American  Hide  and  Leather  Splitting,  &c. 
Co.  V.  American  Tool  Co.,  1  Holmes,  503;  4  Fisher,  284; 
American  Saddle  Co.  v.  Hogg,.  1  Holmes,  133 ;  5  Fisher, 
353 ;  2  Off.  Gaz.  59 ;  Burden  v.  Corning,  2  Fisher,  477. 

Notice  required.     Railroad  Co.  v.  Dubois,  12  Wall.  47. 

Thirty  days'  notice.  McComb  v.  Brodie,  1  Woods,  153;  5 
Fisher,  384;  2  Off.  Gaz.  117. 

Notice  of  special  defense  under  general  issue.  Kelleher  v.  Dar- 
ling, 14  Off.  Gaz.  673;  Kendall  v.  Winsor,  21  How.  322; 
Keplinger  v.  De  Young,  10  Wheat.  358;  1  Robb,  459. 

Offer  to  pay.     Berger  v.  Peterson,  78  HI.  633. 

What  the  special  defenses  under  general  issue  are.  Bates  v. 
Coe,  8  Otto,  31;  15  Off.  Gaz.  337. 

Under  genoral  issue,  what  payment  is  made  in.  Loudon  v. 
Birt,  4  Ind.  566. 


180  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Sufficiency  of  notice.     Westlake  i'.  Cartter,  4  Off.  Gaz.  636. 
Must  be  proved.     Collender  v.   Came,  10  Off.  Gaz.  467;  Cook 

V.  Howard,  4  Fisher,  269;  Jenkins  v.  Walker,  1  Holmes, 

120;  5  Fisher,  347;  1  Off.  Gaz.  359. 
Counter-claims,  invalidity.     Marston  v.  Swett,  4  Hun  (N.  Y.), 

153;  6Th.  &C.  (N.  Y.)  534. 
Invalidity  as  defense  to  bond.     Nye  v.  Raymond,  16  111.  153. 
License  as  a  defense.     Day  v.  New  England  Car  Spring  Co.,  3 

Blatch.  154. 
Purchase  from  license.     Howe  v.  Newton,  2  Fisher,  531. 
Waiver.     Foy  v.  Hunter,  9  Off.  Gaz.  542. 
(See  Contract,   Injunction;    License;   Note;   Pleading; 

Preliminary    Injunctions;     Publications;    Reissue; 

Usefulness;  Validity.) 

DEFINITIONS. 

"  Art."     Smith  v.  Downing,  1  Fisher,  64. 

"Cuspadore."     IngersoU  v.  Turner,  12  Off.  Gaz.  189;  Burden 

V.  Corning,  2  Fisher,  477;  Cahoon  v.  Ring,  1  Cliff.  592;  1 

Fisher,  397. 
"  Equivalents."     Tyler  v.  Boston,  7  Wall.  327. 
*' Identity."     Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall.  478;  1  Robb,  40. 
"  Machine."     Wintermute  v.  Redington,  1  Fisher,  239. 
"Not   known   or  used   before   his  application."      Pennock  v. 

Dialogue,  2  Peters,  1 ;  1  Robb,  542. 
"  Novelty."     McCormick  v.  Seymour,  3  Blatch.  209. 
"  Principle."     Leroy  v.  Tatham,  14  How.  156. 
"  Profits."     Mers  v.  Conover,  11  Off.  Gaz.  1111. 
"Public  use  and  sale."     Ryan  v.  Goodwin,  3  Sumn.    514;  1 

Robb,  725. 
"Simultaneously."     King  v.  Werner,  12  Blatch.   270;  8  Off. 

Gaz.  361. 
"  Substantially  the  same."     Adams  v.  Edwards,  1  Fisher,  1. 
"Substantially  as  described."     Seymour  v.  Osborne,  3  Fisher, 

555. 
"Useful."     Bedford  v.   Hunt,  1  Mason,   302;    1   Robb,    148; 

Lowell  i;.  Lewis,  1  IMason,  182;  1  Robb,  131;  Whitney  v. 

Emmett,  1  Bald.  303 ;  1  Robb,  567. 
(See  Assignment;  Defective  Specification;  Usefulness.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  181 

DEGREE. 

(See  Usefulness.) 

DELAY. 

Lack  of  patent  lawyers  as  reason  in  a  suit.     Goodyear  v.  Hulli- 

hen,  2  Hughes,  492  ;  3  Fisher,  251. 
(See  Abaxdonmejjt  ;  Contract  ;  Disclaimer  ;  Invention  ; 
Suits.) 

DEMURRER. 

Anthony  v.  Carroll,  9  Off.  Gaz.  199. 

In  general.     Wilder  v.  McCormick,  2  Blatch.  31. 

To  whole  bill  and  to  p9,rt.  Atlantic  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  Cali- 
fornia Powder  AVorks,  8  Otto,  126;  15  OS.  Gaz.  289. 

To  pleas.     Birdsell  v.  Perego,  5  Blatch.  251. 

Technical  defects  may  be  amended.  Wilder  v.  McCormick,  2 
Blatch.  31. 

DENIAL. 

(See  Infringement.) 

DEPOSITIONS. 

Taking.     Evans  v.  Hettick,  3  Wash.  408;  1  Robb,  166. 
(See  Evidence.) 

DESCRIPTION. 

(See  Defective  Specification;  Invention;  Inventor: 

Reissue.) 

DESIGNS. 

Machine  to  print  designs  is  not  a  design.  Clark  v.  Bousfield, 
10  Wall.  133. 

DILIGENCE. 

Reasonable.     Ayling  v.  Hull,  2  Cliif.  494. 

(See  New  Trial;  Original  Inventor.) 

DISADVANTAGES. 
(See  Inventor.) 


182  PATENT     CASE    INDEX. 


DISCLAIMER. 

Admissibility  of,  in  evidence.     Silsby  v.  Foote,  14  How.  218. 
After  suit  brought,  no  costs.     Guyon  v.  Serrell,   1   Blatch.  244; 

Hall  V.  Wiles,  2  Blatch.  194. 
Costs  not  allowed,  when.      Myers  v.  Dunbar,  8  Blatch.  446;  4 

Fisher,  493. 
Delay.     Burden  o.  Corning,  2  Fisher,  477. 
Delay,   unreasonable.      Burdett    v.    Estey,    15   Oif.    Gaz.    877; 

Hotclikiss  y.  Oliver,  5  Denio   (N.  Y.)   314;    Lippincott  v. 

Kelly,  1  AVest.  L.  J.  513;  Seymour  v.  McCormick,  19  How. 

96;  Smith  v.  Nichols,  21  Wall.  112. 
Must  be  without  delay.     Silsby  v.  Foote,  20  How.  378. 
During  suit.      Taylor   v.    Archer,    8    Blatch.    315;    4   Fisher, 

449. 
When  to  be  filed.     Tuck  y.  Bramhill,  6  Blatch.   95;    3  Fisher, 

400. 
By  mistake.      Amei-ican  Shoe   Tip  Co.    v.   National  Shoe  Tip 

Protector   Co.,  11  Off.    Gaz.    740;    Hussey    v.   Bradley,  5 

Blatch.  134;  2  Fisher,  362. 
Unreasonable  negligence.     Hall  v.  Wiles,  2  Blatch.  194. 
What  are  proper.     Tuck  u.  Bramhill,  6  Blatch.    95;  3  Fisher, 

400. 
Express  exclusion  of  one  ingredient.     Byam  v.  Farr,  1  Curtis, 

260. 
When  recorded,  becomes  part  of  original  specification.    Dunbar 

V.  Myers,  4  Otto,  187;  11  Off.  Gaz.  35. 
Proposition  to  file  disclaimer,  treated  as  if  akeady  filed.     Aiken 

V.  Dolan,  3  Fisher,  197. 
Must  be  properly  proved  before  admitted  into  evidence.     Foote 

V.  Silsby,  1  Blatch.  445. 
By  owner  of  sectional  interest.     Potter  v.  Holland,  4  Blatch. 

206 ;  1  Fisher,  327. 
Must  be  filed  before  suit  is  brought.     Reed  v.  Cutter,  1  Story, 

590;  2Robb,  81. 
Disclaimers   do  not  change   the   statements   of    patents,   only 

remove    part.       Schillinger     v.     Gunther,    14     Off.    Gaz. 

713. 

(See  Injunction;  Reissue.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  183 


DISCOVERY. 

When  penalty  would  fall  on  defendant.     Finch  v.  Rikeman,  2 
Blatch.  301. 
(See  Abandonment;  Bill;  Invention;  Jukisdiction.) 

DISCRETION. 

(See  Appeal;  Commissioner;  Costs;  Preliminary  Injunc- 
tions.) 

DISSOLUTION. 
(See  Injunction.) 

DISTRICT    ATTORNEY. 
(See  Repeal.) 

DISTRICT    OF    COLUMBIA. 
(See  ALandamus.) 

DISTRICT   JUDGE. 
(See  Injunction.) 

DOCKET    FEES. 
(See  Costs.) 

DOMICILE. 
(See  Corporation;  Jurisdiction.) 

DOUBT. 
(See Injunction;  Preliminary  Injunctions  ;  Public  Use.) 

DRAWINGS. 

May  correct  error  in  text.     Kittle  v.  Merriam,  2  Curtis,  475. 
Effect  in  limiting  a  patent.     Hamilton  v.  Ives,  6  Fisher,  244;  3 
Off.  Gaz.  30. 


184  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

New  drawings  may  be  added  by  reissue.     Hank's  Case,  2  A.  L. 

T.  (U.  S.)  R.  129. 
Are  part  of  specification.     Earl  v.  Sawyer,  4  Mason,  1;  1  Robb, 

490;  Hamilton  v.  Ives,  6  Fisher,  244. 
Not  referred  to  in  specification.     Washburn  v.  Gould,  3  Story, 

122;    2  Robb,  206. 

(See  Construction  of  Patents;  Reissue.) 

DUPLICITY. 
(See  Pleading.) 

DURATION.  ■ 

(See  Patent.) 

EFFECT. 
(See  Patentability;  Release.) 

ELECTION. 
See  Contract.) 

EMPLOYE. 

Improvement  in  model  by.     Berdan  Fire-arms  Manufacturing 

Co.  V.  Remington,  3  Off.  Gaz.  688. 
Making  experiments,  rule  of  law.     Chabot  v.  American  Button, 

&c.  Co.,  6  Fisher,  71. 
Contract  to   serve   and   invent.     Continental  Windmill  Co.  v. 

Empire  Windmill  Co.,  8  Blatch.  295;  4  Fisher,  428;  Mc- 

Clurg  V.  Kingsland,  1  How.  202;  2  Robb,   105;  Wilkins  v. 

Spofford,  13  Off.  Gaz.  675. 
Using  his   own   time  in  making  experiments.      Lockwood  v. 

Lockwood,  33  Iowa,  198. 
At  expense  of  employer   in  making  experiments.     Slemmer's 

Appeal,  58  Penn.  St.  155. 
Mere  fact  of  employment  not  enough  to  cover  inventions  not  in 

particular  line.     Whiting  v.  Graves,  13  Off.  Gaz.  455. 
(See  Infringement;  Prior  Use.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  185 

ENGLISH    COMMON    PLEAS. 

Effect  of  judgment  of.     Bishchoff  v.  Wethered,  9  Wall.  812. 

EQUITY. 

Adequate  remedy  at  law.     Perry  v.  Corning,  7  Blatch.  195. 

Fraud  of  plaintiff  prevents  relief.  Hoffheims  v.  Brandt,  3 
Fisher,  218. 

Jurisdiction  is  as  full  as  at  law.  Hoffheims  v.  Brandt,  3  Fisher, 
218. 

Jurisdiction,  suit  at  law  not  a  prerequisite.  Motte  v.  Bennett, 
2  Fisher,  642. 

Relief,  mistake.     Black  v.  Stone,  33  Ala.  327. 

Equitable  and  legal  titles.  Continental  Windmill  Co.  v.  Em- 
pire AVindmill  Co.,  8  Blatch.  295;  4  Fisher,  428;  Day  v. 
Candee,  3  Fisher,  9;  Littlefield  v.  Perry,  21  Wall.  205;  7 
Off.  Gaz.  904;  Whiting  v.  Graves,  13  Off.  Gaz.  455. 

Equitable  title  gives  right  to  sue.  Iluggles  v.  Eddy,  10  Blatch. 
52;  5  Fisher,  581. 

(See  Assignee;  Forfeiture;  Jurisdiction;   Jury;  Suits.) 

EQUIVALENT. 

(See  Combination;  Defective  Specification;  Definition; 
Infringement;  Injunction;  Inventor;  Patent.) 

ERROR. 

Writ.     Bellas  v.  Hays,  5  S.  &  R.  (Penn.)  427. 

Writ  allowed  in  chambers.     Foote  v.  Silsby,  1  Blatch.  542. 

Writ  lies  against  decision  on  agreed  statement  of  facts.     Stimp- 

son  V.  Baltimore  and  Susquehanna  Railroad,  10  How.  329. 
Writ,   conclusions  of  fact  not  open.      Stevens  v.  Pierpont,  42 

Conn.  360. 
Writ  after  mandate  brings  up  only  what  was  done  since.     Sizer 

V.  Many,  16  How.  98. 
Assignment  of  error  in  Iowa.      Hawes  v.  Twogood,  12  Iowa, 

582. 


186  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Too  broad  assignment  of  error.     Marsh  v.  Seymour,  7  Otto,  348; 

13  Off.  Gaz.  723. 
Error  in  citation.     Chaffee  v.  Hayward,  20  How.  208. 
(See  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

ESTOPPEL. 

By  contract.     Eureka  Co.  v.  Bailey  Washing  Machine  Co.,   11 

Wall.  488;    Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Elm  City  Co.,  13  Blatch. 

151;  8  Off.  Gaz.  773;  Read  v.  Bowman,  2  Wall.  591. 
By  contract  in  restraint  of  trade.      Parkhurst  v.  Kinsman,  1 

Blatch.  488. 
Not  estopped  by  contract  to  pay  royalty.     Hawks  v.  Swett,  4 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  146;  6  Th.  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  529. 
By  covenant.      Heilner  v.   Batten,  27  Penn.   St.  517;  Stanley 

Rule  and  Level  Co.  v.  Bailey,  14  Blatch.  510. 
By  covenant  not  to  infringe.     Sargent  v.  Earned,  2  Curtis,  340. 
By  deed  and  in  pais.     Jackson  v.  Allen,  120  Mass.  64. 
By  judgment,  certainty  of  record  required.     Russell  v.  Place, 

4  Otto,  606;   12  Off.  Gaz.  53. 
By  judgment,  former  suit  on  want  of  novelty.     Dubois  v.  Phila- 
delphia and  Wilmington  Railroad,  5  Fisher,  208. 
By  license.     Jones  v.  Buruham,  67  Me.  93;  Rich  v.  Atwater,  16 

Conn.  409. 
By  note.     Rose  v.  Hurley,  39  Ind.  77. 
On   nudum  pactum,  generally.       Saxton    v.    Dodge,  57  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  84. 
Of  purchaser,  by  resale.     Thomas  v.  Quintard,  5  Duer  (N.  Y.) 

80. 
Silence  as  an  estoppel.     Railroad  Co.  v.  Dubois,  12  Wall.  47. 
By  sales  under  agreement.     Kinsman  v.  Parkhurst,  18  How.  289. 
By  previous  statement  of  date  of  invention.     Union  Paper  Bag 

Machine  Co.  v.  Crane,  1  Holmes,  429;  6  Off.  Gaz.  801. 
(See  Contract;  Invention.) 

EVASION. 

(See  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

EVIDENCE. 

Actions  at  law  as  evidence.     Doughty  v.  West,  2  Fisher,  553. 


SYNOPSIS     OF    LAW    POINTS.  187 

Addilioiial.     Biidsell  v.   Ilagerstown  Agricultural,   &c.   Co.,  6 

Off.  Gaz.  604. 
Admissibility  of.     CoUender  v.  Griffeth,  11  Blatch.  212;    3  Off. 

Gaz.    689;    Corning  v.    Burden,    15   How.  252;    Foote   v. 

Silsby,  1  Blatch.  445;  Havves   v.  Twogood,    12   Iowa,    582; 

Johnson  v.  Willimantic  Linen  Co.,  33  Conn.  436;  Marsh  v. 

Dodge,  4  Ilun  (N.  Y.)  278;  6  Th.  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  568;  Rich 

V.  Atwater,  16  Conn.  409;  Vale  v.  Butler,  111  Mass.  55. 
Admission  of.     Earl  v.  Dexter,  1  Holmes,  412;  6  Off.  Gaz.  729; 

Philadelphia  and  Ti-enton  Railroad  v.  Stimpson,  14  Peters, 

448;  2Robb,  46. 
Agreement  of  counsel  to  admit.     American  Saddle  Co.  v.  Hogg, 

2  Off.  Gaz.  595. 
Agreement  of  counsel  about  evidence  may  not  be  accepted  by 

court.     Heilner  v.  Battin,  27  Penn.  St.  517. 
Not  in  answer.     Geier  v.  Goetinzer,  7  Off.  Gaz.  563. 
State  of  art.     Westlake  v.  Cartter,  6  Fisher,  519 ;  4  Off.  Gaz.  636. 
State  of  art  under  general  issue.     Brown  v.  Piper,  1  Otto,  37 ;  10 

Off.  Gaz.  417. 
In  chancery.     Berger  v.  Patterson,  78  111.  633. 
Contract  as  evidence.     Russell  v.  Lathrop,  117  Ma.ss.  424. 
Certified  copies  of  patents.      Woodworth  v.   Hall,  1  W.  &  M. 

248;  2Robb,  495. 
Credibility.     Cahill  v.  Brown,  15  Off.  Gaz.  697. 
Cumulative.     Blandy  v.  Griffeth,  6  Fisher,  434. 
Declarations  by  patentee.     Evans  v.  Hettick,  7  Wheat.  453;  1 

Robb,  417. 
Depositions  de  bene  esse.     Pettibone  v.  Deringer,  4  Wash.  215;  1 

Robb,  152. 
Exclusion  of  evidence.      Davis  v.  Gray,  17  Ohio  St.  330;  Mc- 

Dougall  V.  Fogg,  2  Bosw.  (N.  Y.),  387;  Osborn  v.  Herron, 

28  Ga.  313;  Tucker  v.  Spaulding,  13  Wall.  453;  5  Fisher, 

297;  1  Off.  Gaz.  144. 
Execution  of  instrument,  proved   by  attestation.     Sherman  v. 

Champlain  Transportation  Co.,  31  Vt.  162. 
Irregularly  put  on  record.     Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  2  Peters,  1 ; 

1  Robb,  542. 
Knowledge  of  witness  better  than  opinion  of  others.      Gutta- 
percha Co.  V.  Goodyear  Rubber  Co.,  3  Sawyer,  542. 


188  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Memory  as  evidence  of  anticipation.  Hayden  v.  Suffolk  Manu- 
facturing Co.,  4  Fisher,  86. 

New  evidence.     Foote  v.  Silsby,  1  Blatch.  545. 

Notice,  special  in  equity.     Doughty  v.  West,  2  Fisher,  553. 

Notice,  sufficiency  of.  McDowell  v.  Meredith,  4  Whart. 
(Penn.)  311. 

Notice,  want  of,  cannot  be  cured  by  amending  answer.  Roberts 
V.  Buck,  1  Holmes,  224;  6  Fisher,  325;  3  Off.  Gaz.  269. 

Note,  best  evidence.     Dunbar  v.  Marden,  13  N.  H.  311. 

Omission  of.     Aiken  v.  Bemis,  3  W.  &  M.  348;  2  Robb,  644. 

Positive  and  negative.  Sayles  v.  Chicago  and  Northwestern 
Railroad,  3  Bissell,  52;  4  Fisher,  586. 

Rebutting.  Day  v.  New  England  Car  Spring  Co.,  3  Blatch.  154; 
Evans  v  Hettick,  7  Wheat.  453;  1  Robb,  417. 

Rejected  applications  of  third  party.  Union  Paper  Bag  Machine 
Co.  V.  Pultz  and  Walkley  Co.,  15  Off.  Gaz.  423. 

Statutes  under  general  issue.  Kneass  v.  Schuylkill  Bank,  4 
Wash.  9 ;  1  Robb,  303. 

Under  general  issue.  Bartholomew  v.  Sawyer,  4  Blatch.  347; 
1  Fisher,  516. 

Incompetency,  evidence  of  prior  use  to  prove  right  in  defend- 
ant's assignor.     Baldwin  v.  Sibley,  1  Cliff.  150. 

(See  Abandoned  Experiments;  Abandonment;  Assign- 
ment; Books;  Contract;  Damages;  Defective 
Specification;  Disclaimer;  Experts;  Foreign  Pat- 
ents; Fraud;  Infringement;  Injunction;  Inventor; 
Jurisdiction;  License;  Master;  New  Trial;  Note; 
Original  Inventor;  Patent;  Preliminary  Injunc- 
tions; Rehearing;  Reissue;  Usefulness;  Want  of 
Novelty.) 

EXAMINERS. 

Appointment  of  special.  Squire,  John  L.,  In  re,  12  Off.  Gaz. 
1025. 

(See  Commissioner;  Costs;  Patent.) 

EXCEPTIONS. 

Bill  of ,  is  part  of  record.  Chaffee  v.  Boston  Belting  Co.,  22 
How.  217. 


SYNOPSIS     OF    LAW     POINTS.  189 

General,  to   charge  of  court.     Serviss  v.  Stockstill,  30  Ohio  St. 

418;  Stimpson  v.   West  Chester  Raih-oad,  4  How.  380;  2 

Robb,  335. 
To  court's  rulings.      Ca,se  v.  Brown,  2  Wall.  320;  Wheeler  v. 

Billings,  38  N.  Y.  263. 
Rule  of  court  not  made  part  of  bill  of  exceptions,  effect.     Packet 

Co.  V.  Sickles,  19  Wall.  611. 

(See  Excess;  Master's  Report;  New  Trial.) 

EXECUTION. 

Seizure  of  materials  on.     Powder  Co.  v.  Burkhardt,  7  Otto,  110. 
(See  Contract.) 

EXECUTOR. 

(See  Administrators;    Assignee;    Assignment;   Parties; 
Patent;  Reissue;  Title.) 

EX  PARTE. 

(See  Application.) 

EXPERIMENTS. 

(See  Abandoned  Experiments;  Abandonment;    Employe; 
Public  Use;  Statute.) 

EXPERTS. 

Practical  and  theoretical  mechanics  are  contemplated  by  patent 

law.     Allen  v.  Blunt,  3  Story,  742;  2  Robb,  288. 
No  doubt  of  their  competency  as  witnesses.     Barrett  v.  Hall,  1 

Mason,  447;  1  Robb,  207. 
Competency  of  particular  expert.     Bierce  v.  Stocking,  11  Gray 

(Mass.)  174. 
Expert  testimony  is  proper  but  sometimes  unnecessary.     Bish- 

choff  V.  Wethered,  9  Wall.  812. 
Opinion  of  identity  can  be  testified  to  by  experts  only.     Cono- 

ver  V.  Rapp,  4  Fitsher,  57. 


190  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

To  explain  terms  used  in  the  arts,  &c.,  not  to  constriie  written 
instruments.     Day  v.  Steltman,  1  Fisher,  487. 

Persons  acquainted  with  the  particuhir  art.  Dixon  v.  Moyer,  4 
AVash.  68;  1  Robb,  324. 

Practical  experiment  is  better  than  expert  opinion.  Hudson 
V.  Draper,  4  Fisher,  256. 

In  weighing  expert's  opinions,  look  at  his  ability,  knowledge, 
fairness,  &c.     Johnson  v.  Root,  1  Fisher,  351. 

Ingenuity  of,  does  not  make  a  patent  good.  Kelleher  v.  Dar- 
ling, 14  0ff.  Gaz.  673. 

Little  confidence  in  opinions  of  experts  and  professors.  Living- 
ston V.  Jones,  1  Fisher,  521. 

Expert  testimony  is  exception  to  law  of  evidence  of  opinion. 
Many  v.  Sizer,  1  Fisher,  17. 

Entitled  to  great  respect  when  qualified  and  free  from  bias. 
Morris  v.  Barrett,  1  Bond,  254;  1  Fisher,  461. 

Opinion  as  to  impracticability,  of  little  weight  compared  to 
actual  use.  Seymour  r.  Marsh,  6  Fisher,  115;  9  Phila. 
380;  2  Off.  Gaz.  675. 

Mere  opinion  without  facts,  is  unsatisfactory.  United  States 
Annunciator  Co.  v.  Sanderson,  3  Blatch.  184. 

Agreement  between  experts  for  plaintiff  and  defendant.  Web- 
ster V.  New  Brunswick  Carpet  Co.,  5  Off.  Gaz.  522. 

Sometimes  unnecessary.  Winans  v.  New  York  and  Erie  Rail- 
road, 21  How.  88. 

(See  Rehearing.) 

EXPIRATION    OF    PATENT. 
(See  Extensions;  Patent;  Reissue.) 

EXTENSIONS. 

To  administrators.     Washburn  v.  Gould,  3  Story,  122;  2  Robb, 

206. 
Administrator  can  sue  assignees  of  patentee.  Wilson  v.  Rousseau, 

4  How.  646;  2  Robb,  373;  Woodworth  v.  Cheever,  3  Story, 

171;  2  Robb,  257;  Woodworth  v.  Ilall,  1  W.  &  M.  248;  2 

Robb,  495. 


SYNOPSIS    OP    LAW    POINTS.  191 

Applied  for  ninety  days  before  expiration  of  patent.     Johnson 

V.  McCulloch,  4  Fisher,  170. 
Effect  of  assignment.    Case  v.  Redfield,  4  McLean,  526;  2  Robb, 

741;  Day  v.   Candee,  3  Fisher,  9;    Lowell   Manufacturing 

Co.  V.  Hatfield  Carpet  Co.,  2  Fi-sher,  472. 
By  special  act.     Blancliard  v.  Ilaynes,  6  West.  L.  J.  82;  Evans 

V.  Eaton,  3  Wheat.  454;  1  Robb,  243. 
Beginning  of.     Jordan  v.  Dobson,  2  Abbott,  398;  7  Phila.  533; 

4  Fisher,  232. 
By  Congress.     Blanchard  v.   Beers,  2  Blatch.   411;  Jordan  i;. 

Dobson,  2  Abbott,  398;  7  Phila.  533;  4  Fisher,  232. 
By  Congress  does  not  prevent  royalties.     Union  Manufacturing 

Co.  V.  Lounsbury,  41  N.  Y.  363. 
False  representations.     Goodyear  v.  Providence  Rubber  Co.,  2 

Cliff.  351 ;  2  Fisher,  499. 
Illegality  of .    Crompton  v.  Belknap  Mills,  3  Fisher,  536;  Brooks 

V.  Bicknell,  3  McLean,  250;  2  Robb,  118. 
Object  is  to  make  fair  profit.     Aiken  v.  Dolan,  3  Fisher,  197. 
Operates  prospectively  only.     Bloomer  v.  McQuewan,  14  How. 

539;  Bloomer  v.  Stolly,  5  McLean,  158. 
Extension  to  patentee  after  reissue  to  assignee,  is  good.     Potter 

V.  Braunsdorf,  7  Blatch.  97. 
Vests    whole    title    without    regard    to  where    it   was    at   re- 
issue.    Potter  V.  Empire  Sewing  Machine  Co.,  3  Fisher, 

474. 
Validity  of.     Colt  v.  Young,  2  Blatch.  471. 
Strengthens  presumption   of   novelty.     Whitney   i'.   Mowry,   2 

Bond,  45;  3  Fisher,  157. 
Strengthens  presumption  of  validity.     McComb   v.   Ernest,   1 

Woods,  195. 
Time  twenty-eight  years  in   all,  legality.     Woodworth  v.  Ed- 
wards, 3  W.  &  M.  120;  2  Robb,  610. 
Use  after.     Farrington  r.  Water  Commissioners,  4  Fisher,  216. 
Renewal.     Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  4  INIcLean,  70. 
Is  judicial   act  not  impeached  collaterally.       American   Wood 

Paper  Co.  v.  Glen  Falls  Paper  Co.,  8  Blatch.  513;  4  Fisher, 

324. 
(See   Assignee;    Assignment;    Commissioner;   Contract; 
In.iunction  ;  License;  Renewal;  Repeal;  Sale;  Use.) 


192  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


FACT. 

(See  Abandonment;  Assignment;  Court;  Damages;  In- 
junction ;  Master's  Report  ;  Preliminary  Injunc- 
tions ;  Prior  Knowledge;  Uncertainty.) 

FALSE   REPRESENTATIONS. 
(See  Note  ;  Sale.) 

FEES. 
(See  Costs  ;  Master.) 

FINE. 
(See  Injunction.) 

FIRST  INVENTOR. 
(See  Inventor.) 

FORECLOSURE. 
(See  Mortgage.) 

FOREIGN  CORPORATIONS. 
(See  Corporation.) 

FOREIGN  PATENTS. 

Date  of.  French  i\  Rogers,  1  Fisher,  133 ;  Morse  v.  Bain,  9 
West.  L.  J.  106. 

English  patent.     Gatling  v.  Newell,  9  Ind.  572. 

English  patent  surreptitiously  obtained  does  not  defeat  in- 
ventor's right  here.  Kendrick  v.  Emmons,  9  Off.  Gaz. 
201. 

Expiration  of.  Badische  Anilin,  &c.  v.  Hamilton  Manufactur- 
ing Co.,  13  Off.  Gaz.  273;  Henry  v.  Providence  Tool  Co., 
14  Off.  Gaz.  855 ;  Smith  v.  Ely,  5  McLean,  76  ;  Weston  v. 
White,  13  Blatch.  3G4;  9  Off.  Gaz.  1196. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  193 

Expiration  before  extension.     Tilghman  v.  Mitchell,  9  Blatch. 

18 ;  4  Fisher,  615. 
Unsatisfactory  evidence  of.     Putnam  v.  Hickey,  3  Bissell,  157 ; 

5  Fisher,  334;  2  Off.  Gaz.  225. 
Must  be  clear  and  exact  to  anticipate.     Cahill  v.  Brown,  15  Off. 

Gaz.  697. 
Free  from  interferences,  patents  held  by  aliens.    Bland,  ex  parte, 

15  Off.  Gaz.  828. 
By  third  person  without  consent  of  inventor.     Goodyear  Dental 

Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Willis,  7  Off.  Gaz.  41. 
Statute  of  1861.     Goff  v.  Stafford,  14  Off.  Gaz.  748. 
Time  of.     City  of  Elizabeth  v.  Pavement  Co.,  7  Otto,  126. 
Translation  of.     White  v.  Allen,  2  Cliff.  224 ;  2  Fisher,  440. 
Met  by  showing  their  worthlessness.     Harwood  v.  Mill  River 

Woollen  Manufacturing  Co.,  3  Fisher,  526. 
(See  Original  In VENTOR ;  Preliminary  Injunctioxs  ;  Stat- 
ute ;  Want  of  Novelty.) 

FORFEITURE. 

Equity  never  enforces.     Morse  v.  O'Reilly,  6  Penn.  L.  J.  501. 
By  laches.     Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Elm  City  Co.,  14  Blatch.  109; 

11  Off.  Gaz.  501. 
Of  license.     Woodworth  v.  Weed,  1  Blatch.  165. 
Generally.     Pitts  v.  Hall,  2  Blatch.  229. 

(See  Abandonment;  Assignment;  License.) 

FORM. 

When  change  of,  is  material.     Winans  v.  Denmead,  15  How. 

330. 
Importance  of.     Bain  v.  Morse,  6  West.  L.  J.  372. 
(See  Infringement;  Reissue.) 

FRAUD. 

Not  admissible  under  defense  of  want  of  novelty.     Agawam  Co. 

V.  Jordan,  7  Wall.  583. 
In  obtaining  special  act,  remedy.     Gibson  v.  Gifford,  1  Blatch. 

529. 

13 


194  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Not  open  collaterally.  Eureka  Co.  i'.  Bailey  Washing  Machine 
Co.,  11  Wall.  488;  Gear  v.  Grosvenor,  1  Holmes,  215;  6 
Fisher,  314 ;  3  Off.  Gaz.  380 ;  Milligan  and  Higgins  Glue 
Co.  V.  Upton,  6  Off.  Gaz.  837;  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11 
Wall.  516 ;  Whitney  o.  Mowry,  4  Fisher,  207. 

Fraudulent  misrepresentations  in  patent.  Elm  City  Co.  v. 
Wooster,  6  Fisher,  452;  4  Off.  Gaz.  83. 

Hearsay  evidence.     Wilson  v.  Simpson,  9  How.  109. 

Of  government,  limitations  not  accepted  by  patentee.  Pike  v. 
Potter,  3  Fisher,  55. 

Must  be  proved.  Jordan  v.  Dobsou,  2  Abbott,  398;  7  Phila. 
533;  4  Fisher,  232. 

Tort  for  deceit,  false  representations.    David  v.  Park,  103  Mass. 
501. 
(See   Contract;   Equity;    Extension;    License;    Note; 
Original    Inventor;    Pleading;    Reissue;    Sale; 
Suits.) 

FUNCTION. 
(See  Patentability.) 

GAINS. 
(See  Damages.) 

GENERAL  ISSUE. 
(See  Defense;  Evidence;  Pleading.) 

GOVERNMENT. 
(See  Damages;  Fraud;  Repeal.) 

GUARDIANS. 
(See  Sale.) 

HABENDUM   CLAUSE. 
(See  Assignment.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  196 

IDEA. 
(See  Patentability.) 

IDENTITY. 
(See  JuKY.) 

IGNORANCE. 

(See  UNCERTAINTY.) 

IMPRACTICABILITY. 

(See  Patent.) 

IMPROVEMENTS. 

(See  Damages;  Injunction;    Invention;   Inventor;  Pat- 
ent ;  Patentability.) 

INADVERTENCE. 
(See  Reissue.) 

INCAPACITY. 

(See  Reissue.) 

INCOMPETENCY. 
(See  Evidence.) 

INCOMPLETENESS. 
(See  Patentability.) 

INDIANA  LAW. 

(See  Corporation.) 

INFRINGEMENT. 

Acquiescence  by  plaintiff.     Jordan  v.  Dobson,  2  Abbott,  398; 

TPhila.  53:i;  4  Fisher,  2;i2. 
Agents  of  corporations  having  nothing  to  do  with  its  use,  do  not 

infringe.     Lightner  r.  Kimball,  1  Lowell,  211. 


196  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

By  American  boats  on  high  seas.    Gardiner  v.  Howe,  2  Cliff. 

462. 
Burden  of  proof.     Agawam  Co.  v.  Jordan,  7  Wall.  583;  Bates 
V.  Coe,  8  Otto,  31;  15  Off.  Gaz.  337;  Goff  v.  Stafford,  14 
Oft'.  Gaz.  748;  Graham  v.  Mason,  5  Fisher,  1;  Hudson  v. 
Draper,  4  Fisher,  256;  Parker  v.  Stiles,  5  McLean,  44. 
Change  of  form. 

May  be  of  essence.     Dennis  v.  Eddy,  4  Fisher,  423. 
Mechanical  equivalents.     Gorham  v.  Mixter,  8  Penn.  L.  J. 
539;    Lowell  v.  Lewis,  1  Mason,   182;    1  Robb,  131; 
Murphy  v.  Eastham,  1  Holmes,  113;  5  Fisher,  306;  2 
Off.  Gaz.  61;  Murphy  v.  Kissling,  1  Holmes,  432;  7 
Off.    Gaz.    302  ;    Sargent  v.    Earned,    2    Curtis,   340; 
Tatham  v.  Leroy,  2  Blatch.   474;  Taylor  v.  Garretson, 
9  Blatch.  156;  5  Fisher,  116. 
Inventive  skill.     Teese  v.  Phelps,  1  McAllister,  48. 
When  essential.     Union  Paper  Bag,  &c.  Co.  v.  Murphy,  7 
Otto,  120;  13  Off.  Gaz.  366;  Weston  v.  Nash,  1  Hohnes, 
488;  7  Off.  Gaz.  1096. 
Shape.     Wilbur  v.  Beecher,  2  Blatch.  132. 
"Characteristic   resemblance."      Union    Paper    Collar    Co.    v. 

White,  9  Off.  Gaz.  698. 
Choice  of  remedies.     Magic  Ruffle  Co.   v.   Elm  City  Co.,  13 

Blatch.  151 ;  8  Off.  Gaz.  773. 
Circular   of   defendant   as   evidence.     Masury   v.    Tiemann,   8 

Blatch.  426 ;  4  Fisher,  524. 
Claim,  narrow,     lieckendorfer  v.  Faber,  12  Blatch.  68;  5  Off. 

Gaz.  697. 
Colorable  alterations.  Adams  v.  Jones,  1  Fisher,  527;  American 
Diamond  Rock  Boring  Co.  v.  Sullivan  Company,  14  Blatch. 
119;  American  Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  City  of  Eliza- 
beth, 4  Fisher,  189;  Byara  v.  Eddy,  2  Blatch.  521;  Odiorne 
V.  Denney,  13  Off.  Gaz.  965;  Odiorne  v.  Winkley,  2  Gall. 
51;  1  Robb,  52;  Pitts  v.  Wemple,  1  Bissell,  87;  2  Fisher, 
10;  Vaughan  v.  Central  Pacific  Railroad,  4  Sawyer,  280; 
Whitely  v.  Kirby,  11  Wall.  678. 
Combination. 

Change  of  position  of  parts,  better  work.     Adams  v.  Joliet 
Manufacturing  Co.,  12  Off.  Gaz.  93. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  197 

Combination  —  continued. 

Not  using  the  essential  part.     Adams  and  Westlake  Manu- 
facturing Co.  V.  St.  Louis  Wire  Goods  Co.,  12  Off.  Gaz. 

940. 
Additions.     American  Nicolson  Pavement  Co.   v.  City  of 

Elizabeth,  6  Fi-sher,  424;  3  Off.  Gaz.  522. 
Of  two,  not  infringed  by  one  and  an  outside  element.    Amer- 
ican Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  Hatch,  3  Fisher,  432. 
Substantial  equivalents.     American  Whip  Co.  v.  Lombard, 

14  Off.  Gaz.  900. 
Mere  substitute.     Atlantic  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  Mowbray, 

12  Off.  Gaz.  iii.,  Oct.  2. 
Substituting  another  well-known  part.     Bailey  Washing, 

&c.  Co.  V.  Lincoln,  4  Fisher,  379. 
Change  by  mere  mechanical  skill.     Blake  r.  Eagle  Works 

Manufacturing  Co.,  3  Bissell,  77;  4  Fisher,  .591. 
Mechanical  equivalents.   Blake  f.  Robertson,  11  Blatch.  237. 
Change  for  purpose  of  evasion.     Blake  v.  Robertson,  4  Otto, 

726;  11  Off.  Gaz.  877. 
Used  for   only  one  of  its  many  purposes.     Blanchard  v. 

Beers,  2  Hlatch,  411. 
Sale  of  materials.     Bridge  v.  Brown,  3  Off.  Gaz.  121. 
Immaterial  change  of  location  of  a  part.     Brown  v.  Selby, 

23  AVall.  181 ;  G  Off.  Gaz.  392. 
Cannot  claim  alternative  combinations  where  parts  will  not 

work.     Brown  v.   Whittemore,   5  Fisher,   524;  2  Off. 

Gaz.  248. 
Same  test  of  infringement  as  of  novelty.     Buck  v.  Her- 

mance,  1  Klatch.  398. 
Colorable  difference  or  slight  variation.     Byam  v.  Eddy,  2 

Blatch.  521. 
Test  of  similarity.  Cahoon  v.  Ring,  1  Cliff.  592 ;  1  Fisher,  397. 
Change  of  form  of  parts.     Conover  v.  Roach,  4  Fisher,  12. 
Of  three  not  infringed  by  two.     Coolidge  v.  McCone,  2 

Sawyer,   571;  5  Off.  Gaz.  4o8;  Crompton  v.  Belknap 

Mills,  3  Fisher,  536. 
Omission  of  one  ingredient.      Densmore   v.    Schofield,  4 

Fisher,  148. 
Must  use  entire  combination.     Dunbar  v.  Myers,  4  Otto, 

187;  11  Off.  Gaz.  35. 


198  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Combination  —  continued. 

Mechanical  substitute.     Fislier  v.  Craig,  3  Sawyer,  69. 

Different  function  of  a  part.  Forsyth  v.  Clapp,  1  Holmes, 
278;  6  Fisher,  528;  4  Off.  Gaz.  527. 

Mere  substitutes.  Fuller  v.  Yentzer,  4  Otto,  288 ;  11  Off. 
Gaz.  551;  Fuller  v.  Yentzer,  4  Otto,  299;  11  Off.  Gaz. 
597. 

Equivalents.  Fuzzard  Wadding  Manufacturing  Co.  v. 
■Dickinson,  6  Blatch.  80;  3  Fisher,  289  ;  Gould  v.  Rees, 
15  Wall.  187;  2  Off.  Gaz.  624;  King  v.  Louisville 
Cement  Co.,  6  Fisher,  334;  4  Off.  Gaz.  181;  McCor- 
mick  V.  Many,  6  McLean,  539;  Storrs  v.  Howe,  10 
Off.  Gaz.  420;  Turrell  v.  Spaeth,  14  Off.  Gaz.  377; 
Woolcocks  V.  Many,  9  Blatch.  139;  5  Fisher,  72. 

How  infringed.  Foster  v.  Moore,  1  Curtis,  279  ;  Singer  v. 
Walmesley,  1  Fisher,  558. 

Analogous  device,  colorable  imitation.  Gibson  v.  Van 
Dresar,  1  Blatch.  532. 

Omission  of  one  element.     Gill  v.  Wells,  22  Wall.  1. 

Policy  of  rule  of  equivalents.     Gill  v.  Wells,  22  Wall.  1. 

Combination  and  entire  process,  not  by  combination  and  part 
of  process.     Howe  v.  Abbott,  2  Story,  190;  2  Robb,  99. 

Use  of  its  various  parts.     Moody  v.  Fiske,  2  Mason,  112; 

1  Robb,  312. 

Must  use  all  the  parts.    Parker  v.  Haworth,  4  McLean,  370; 

2  Robb,  725;  Prouty  v.  Draper,  1  Story,  568;  2  Robb, 
75;  Prouty  v.  Ruggles,  16  Peters,  336;  2  Robb,  93. 

Omission  of  one  ingredient.     Rees  v.  Gould,  6  Fisher,  106; 

2  Off.  Gaz.  624. 
Leaving  out  the  new  elements.     Rich  v.  Close,  8  Blatch. 

41;  4  Fisher,  279. 
Selling  parts  to  be  put  together.     Richardson  v.  Noyes,  10 

Off.  Gaz.  507. 
All  the  elements.     Roberts  v.  Harnden,  2  Cliff.  500;  Sands 

V.  Wardwell,  3  Cliff.  277;  Stimpson  v.  Baltimore  and 

Susquehanna  Railroad,  6  Otto,  549. 
Making  one  part.     Saxe  v.  Hammond,  1  Holmes,  456;  7 

Off.  Gaz.    781. 
Is  entirety.     Schumacher  v.  Cornell,  6  Otto,  549  ;  Vance  o. 

Campbell,  1  Black,  427. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS,  199 

Combination  —  continued. 

Smooth  roller  replaced  by  one  covered  with  designs.    Stimp- 

son  V.  Woodman,  10  Wall.  117. 
Making  some  parts  in  concert  with  another  making  the 
rest.     Wallace  v.  Holmes,  9  Blatch.  65;  5  Fisher,  37. 
Change  of  form.     Wilson  v.  Barnum,  2  Fisher,  635. 
Comparison  of  machines.      Conover  v.  Dohrman,  G  Blatch.  60; 
3  Fisher,  382;  Iloe  v.  Simpson,  G  Off.  Gaz.  435. 
Is  for  jury.     Johnson  v.  Root,  1  Fisher,  351 ;  King  v.  Mau- 

delbaum,  8  Blatch.  468 ;  4  Fisher,  577. 
Is  best  test.     Marsh  v.  Seymour,  7  Otto,  348 ;  13  Off.  Gaz. 
723;  Morris  v.  Roger,  2  Bond,  66 ;  3  Fisher,  176;  Sey- 
mour V.   Osborne,  11    Wall.  516;  Swift  v.  Whisen,  2 
Bond,  115;  3  Fisher,  343. 
Composition.     Francis  v.  Mellor,  5  Fisher,  148;  1  Off.  Gaz.  48; 
Goodyear  v.  New  York  Gutta-i^ercha  Co.,  2  Fisher,  312; 
Rich  V.  Lippincott,  2  Fisher,  1 ;  United  States  and  Foreign 
Salamander  Felting  Co.  v.  Lawrence  Manufacturing  Co., 
9  Off.  Gaz.  202. 
Compound.     AVell-known  equivalents.     Woodward  v.  Morrison, 

1  Holmes,  124;  5  Fislier,  357;  2  Off.  Gaz.  120. 
Construction  of  patent  and  comparison  of  machines.  Imlay  v.  Nor- 
wich and  Worcester  Railroad,  4  Blatch.  227  ;  1  Fisher,  340.  • 
Conveyance  under  insolvent  law  of  Massachusetts.      Ashcroft 
V.  Walworth,  1  Holmes,  152 ;  5  Fisher,  528;  2  Off.  Gaz.  546. 
Coi-poration. 

Directors  and  agents  are  responsible.     Goodyear  v.  Phelps, 

3  Blatch.  91. 
Director  without  control  is  not.  Jones  v.  Osgood,  6  Blatch.  435. 
New  corporation  may  use  cars  licensed  to  old  one.     Light- 

ner  v.  Boston  and  Albany  Railroad,  1  Lowell,  338. 
Not  responsible  for  infringement  by  contractor.     Lightner 

V.  Brooks,  2  Cliff.  287. 
In  other  State  connected  with  one  in  this.     York  and  Mary- 
land Line  Railroad  v.  AVinans,  17  How.  30. 
Damages.     Cox  v.  Griggs,  1  Bissell,  362;  2  Fisher,  174;  Hays 

V.  Sulsor,  1  Bond,  279 ;  1  Fisher,  532. 
Defendant  abandoning  his  contract  may  be  sued  as  infringer. 
Steam  Cutter  Co.  v.  Sheldon,  10  Blatch.  1;  5  Fisher,  477. 


200  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Denial  mixst  he  direct.     Goodyear  v.  Berry,  3  Fisher,  439. 
Must  be  distinctly  and  unevasively  denied  in  answer.     Jordan 

V.  Wallace,  5  Fisher,  185. 
Special  denial.     Mabie  v.  Haskell,  2  Cliff.  507. 
Depends  on  construction  given  to  plaintiff's  patent.     Knox  ». 

Murtha,  9  Elatch.  205;  5  Fisher,  174. 
Formal  differences.     Cook  v.  Howard,  4  Fisher,  269;  Klein  r. 
Park,  13  Off.  Gaz.  5;  Pennsylvania  Salt  Co.  v.  Thomas,  5 
Fisher,  148. 
Essential  difference.     Mann  v.  Baylies,  10  Off.  Gaz.  789. 
Marked  difference.     Werner  v.  King,  6  Otto,  218;  13  Off.  Gaz. 

176. 
By  employe.     Boyce  v.  Dorr,  3  IMcLean,  582 ;  2  Robb,  302. 
Equivalents.     Aiken  v.  Dolan,  3  Fisher,  197;  Byam  v.  Farr,  1 
Curtis,  260;  Carter  v.  Baker,  1  Sawyer,  512;  4  Fisher, 
404;  Clough  v.  Gilbert  and  Barker  Manufacturing  Co., 
15  Off.  Gaz.  1009;  Conover  v.  Kapp,  4  Fisher,  .57;  Good- 
year Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Davis,  12  Off.  Gaz.  Oct. 
2d,  I. 
Palpable  evasion.     Hyndman  i;.  Roots,  7  Otto,  224;  13  Off. 

Gaz.  868. 
Mode  of  operation.      King    v.    Werner,   12   Blatch.   270; 

8  Oft'.  Gaz.  301. 
Intent.     Matthews  v.  Skates,  1  Fisher,  602;  Parker  y.  Rem- 
hof,  14  Off.  Gaz.  601 ;  Parker  v.  Stiles,  5  McLean,  44 
Poppenhusen   v.  Falke,  5  Blatch.  46;   2  Fisher,  213 
Potter  V.   Davis   Sewing  Machine  Co.,  3  Fisher,  472 
Smith  V.  DoM'ning,  1  Fisher,  64;  Smith  v.  Marshall,  10 
Off.  Gaz.  375;  Stanley  Rule  and  Level  Co.  r.  Bailey,  14 
Blatch.  510;  Taylor  y.  Archer,  8  Blatch.  315;  4  Fisher, 
449;  Tompkins  v.  Gage,  5  Blatch.  269;  2  Fisher,  577; 
Vogler  V.  Semple,  11  Off.  Gaz.  923. 
Same  actuating  forces.      Seymour  v.  Marsh,  6  Fisher,  115;  9 

Phila.  380;  2  Off.  Gaz.  675. 
Comparative  excellence  irrelevant.     Sickels  v.  Gloucester  Man- 
ufacturing Co.,  1  Fisher,  222.  * 
Thing  with  two  functions  not  infringed  by  thing  with  one  only. 

Bliss  V.  Haight,  7  Blatch.  7;  3  Fisher,  621. 
Same  function.    Brown  i;.  Rubber  Step,  &c.  Co. ,  13  Off.  Gaz.  369. 


SYNOPSIS     OF    LAW    POINTS.  201 

Gist  of  the  action.     Evans  v.  Eaton,  3  Wash.  443;  1  Robb,  68. 

By  government.      Brady  v.  Atlantic  Works,  10  Off.  Gaz.  702. 

OfBcers.     Cammeyer  v.  Xewton,  12  Blatch.  122;  5  Off.  Gaz. 

753;  Cammeyer  y.  Newton,  4 Otto,  225;  11  Off.  Gaz.  287. 

On   government   vessel    is  not  infringement  in  workman. 

lieaton  v.  Quintard,  7  Blatch.  73. 
Amount  of  compensation.      Ilubbell    v.   United  States,  5 

N.  &  II.  1. 
Is  not  a  taking  of  private  property  for  public  use.     Pitcher 

V.  United  States,  1  N.  &  II.  7. 
By  warden  of  penitentiary.      Pitcher  v.  United    States,  1 
N.  &  H.  7. 
Taking  ideas  of  plaintiff.      McCormick  v.   Seymour,  2  Blatch. 

240;  McCormick  v.  Seymour,  3  Blatch.  209. 
Identity,  substantial.     Pike  v.  Providence  and  Worcester  Rail- 
road, 1  Holmes,  445;  6  Off.  Gaz.  575;  Smith  v.  Mercer, 
5  Penn.  L.  J.  529;  Smith  v.  Pearce,  2  McLean,  176;  2 
Robb,  13;  Whitney  w.  Mowry,  2  Bond,  45;  3  Fisher, 
157;  Wintormute  v.  Redington,  1  Fisher,  239. 
Two  machines  with  same  result  are  not  necessarily  the  same. 
Burr  V.  Duryee?  1  Wall.  531. 
Illegal  attempt  of  State  to  let  city  use  without  pay.     Bliss  v. 

City  of  Brooklyn,  8  Blatch.  533;  4  Fisher,  590. 
Improvement.^  effect  of.     Howes  v.  McNeal,  15  Off.  Gaz.  608; 

Winans  v.  New  York  and  Ilavlem  Railroad,  4  Fisher,  1. 
What  infringement  is.     H.ale  c.  Stimpson,  2  Fisher,  5G5;    Ha- 
selden  v.  Ogden,  3  Fisher,  378;    Reutgen  v.    Kanowrs,    1 
Wash.  168;  1  Robb,  1;  Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.   Matthie- 
son,  3  Cliff.  639;  2  Fisher,  600. 
May  recover  for  infiingement  between  fire  of  1836  and  restor- 
ing records.     Hogg  v.  Emerson,  6  How.  437;  2  Robb,  655. 
Patents  for  use  not  infringed  by  making  and  selling.     Key- 
stone Bridge  Co.  i'.  Phoenix  Iron  Co.,  5  Fisher,  468;  1  Off. 
Gaz.  471. 
Process  not  infringed  by  sale  of  product.      Merrill  v.  Yeomans, 

4  Otto,  .568;  11  Off.  Gaz.  970. 
Where  no  infringement  is  found  court  will  not  pass  on  novelty. 

Saxe  V.  Hammond,  1  Holmes,  456;  7  Off.  Gaz.  781. 
Intention.     Hawes  v.  Washburne,  5  Off.  Gaz.  491. 


202  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Interest.     Lack  of,  in  one  defendant.     Hussey  v.   Bradley,   5 

Blatch.  13i. 
By  joint  owner,   damages  apportioned.      Herring  v.  Gas  Con- 
sumers' Association,  13  Off.  Gaz.  637. 
Joint  infringement.     Poppenhusen  v.   Falke,  4  Blatch.  493;  2 

Fisher,  181. 
Is  for  jury.     Jackson  v.  Allen,  120  Mass.  64;  Kneassr.  Schuyl- 
kill Bank,  4   Wash.  9;  1  Robb,   303;  Motte  v.  Bennett,  2 

Fisher,  642. 
License. 

Use  by  purchaser  outside  territory  of  licensee.     Adams  v. 
Burke,  1  Holmes,  40;  4  Fisher,  392;  1  Of£.  Gaz.  282. 

By   licensee   violating  his    contract.       Cohn   v.   National 
Rubber  Co.,  15  Off.  Gaz.  829;  Goodyear  v.  Providence 
Rubber  Co.,  2  Cliff.  351;  2  Fisher,  499. 
Substantially  same  machine.     Johnson  v.  Root,  1  Fisher,  351. 
Sale  of  materials  by  sheriff  is  not.      Sawiu  v.  Guild,   1  Gall. 

485;  1  Robb,  47. 
Same  means.     Ives  v.  Hamilton,  2  Otto,  426;  10  Off.  Gaz.  336; 

Mallory  v.  White,  8  Blatch.  552;  4  Fisher,  628. 
Mechanical  change.     Myers  v.  Dunbar,  8  Blatch.  446;  4  Fisher, 

493;  Whipple  v.  Middlesex  Company,  4  Fisher,  41. 
Mechanical  substitute.     Rice  r.  Heald,  13  Pac.  L.  R.  33. 
Making  to  use  but  not  using.     Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall. 

429 ;  1  Robb,  28. 
Mode  of  operation  the  same.     American  Manufacturing  Co.  v. 

Lane,  14  Blatch.  438;  15  Off.  Gaz.  421;  Earle  v.  Harlow, 

9  Off.  Gaz.  1018;    Evarts  v.  Ford,  6  Fisher,  587;  5  Off. 

Gaz.   58;  Gray  v.  James,  Peters  C.  C.  394;  1  Robb,  120; 

Hartshorn   v.   Tripp,    7    Blatch.   120;  Wyeth   v.    Stone,   1 

Story,  273;  2  Robb,  23. 
Mode  of  operation  different.      Merriam  v.  Van  Nest,  13  Oft". 

Gaz.  597. 
Parts,  selling  the  parts.     Graham  v.  Mason,  1  Holmes,  88;  5 

Fisher,  290;  1  Off.  Gaz.  609. 
Performing  same   function.     Tillotson   v.  Munson,    5   Bissell, 

426. 
By  le.ss   perfect   machine.      Union    Metallic  Cartridge  Co.   v. 
United  States  Cartridge  Co.,  11  Off.  Gaz.  1113. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  203 

Principle  the  same.  Aultman  '■.  IloUey,  11  Blatch.  317 ;  G  Fisher, 
534;  5  Off.  Gaz.  3;  Converse  v.  Cannon,  2  Woods,  7;  9 
Off.  Gaz.  105;  Johnson  v.  Fassman,  1  Woods,  138;  5 
Fisher,  471;  2  Off.  Gaz.  94;  Judson  v.  Cope,  1  Bond, 
327;  1  Fisher,  615;  La  Baw  v.  Hawkins,  6  Off.  Gaz. 
727;  Latta  v.  Shawk,  1  Bond,  259;  1  Fisher,  465;  Lee 
V.  Bhindy,  1  Bond,  361;  2  Fisher,  89;  Lyman  Ventilat- 
ing, &c.  Co,  V.  Lalor,  12  Blatch.  303;  6  Off.  Gaz.  642. 
Carried  farther.  Tracy  v.  Torrey,  2  Blatch.  275. 
Sale  of  product  of  patented   machine.      Boyd  v.   McAlpin,  3 

McLean,  427;  2  Robb,  277. 
Process. 

Lower  pressure  in.     American  Wood  Paper  Co.    v.  Fibre 
Disintegrating  Co.,  6  Blatch.  27;  5  Fisher,  362;  Amer- 
ican Wood  i^aper  Co.  v.  Heft,  3  Fisher,  316. 
Different,  but  with  same  result.     Badische  Anilin,  &c.  v. 

Hamilton  Manufacturing  Co.,  14  Off.  Gaz.  414. 
Same.  Buchanan  v.  Howland,  5  Blatch.  151 ;  2  Fisher,  341 ; 
Burr  V.  Cowperthwait,  4  Blatch.  163;  Clark  v.  Kennedy 
Manufacturing  Co.,  14  Blatch.  79;  11  Off.  Gaz.  67; 
Goodyear  u.  Beverly  Rubber  Co.,  1  Cliff.  348;  Goodyear 
V.  New  Jersey  Central  Railroad,  2  Wall.  Jr.  356;  1 
Fisher.  626. 
Different  process.     Merrill  v.  Yeomans,  1   Holmes,  331;  5 

Off.  Gaz.  267. 

Same  process.     Mitchell  v.  Tilghman,  19  Wall.  287 ;  Mowry 

V.  Wliitney,  14  Wall.  620;  5  Fisher,  494;  1  Off.  Gaz. 

492;  Piper  v.  Brown,   1  Holmes,  20;    4   Fisher,  175; 

Tilghman  v.  Mitchell,  2  Fisher,  518. 

Only  part.     Tilghman  v.  Werk,  1  Bond,  511 ;  2  Fisher,  229. 

Purchase  by  patentee's  agent  as  evidence.     Byam  v.  BuUard,  1 

Curtis,  100. 
Purchase  of  infringer.     Eunson  v.  Dodge,  18  Wall.  414;  5  Off. 

Gaz.  95. 
Purpose  the  same.    Foss  v.  Herbert,  1  Bissell,  121;  2  Fisher,  31. 
Before  reissue.     MofRtt  v.  Gaar,  1  Fisher,  610. 
Of  reissue  is  new  cause  of  action.    Reedy  v.  Scott,  7  Off.  Gaz.  463. 
Remedies  for.     Vaughau  v.  Central  Pacific  Railroad,  4  Sawyer, 
280. 


204  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Result  the  same. 

Different  means.      American  Pin  Co.  v.   Oakville   Co.,  3 
Blatch.  190. 

Same  means.     Knox  v.  Loweree,  6  Off.  Gaz.  802. 

Same  means.     McComb  v.  Beard,  10  Blatch.  350;  6  Fisher, 
254 ;  3  Off.  Gaz.  33;  Roberts  v.  Harnden,  2  Cliff.  500. 

In  same  way.     Searls  ?'.  Van  Nest,  13  Off.  Gaz.  772;  Sickels 
V.  Borden,  3  Blatch.  535. 
By   salesman  selling  without  interest.       Maltby   v.  Bobo,   14 

Blatch.  53. 
By  school  committee.     Allen  v.  City  of  Brooklyn,  4  Fisher,  598. 
State  of  the  art.     United  States  Gauge  Co.  v.  American  Gauge 

Co.,  1  Holmes,  309;  5  Off.  Gaz.  208. 
Test  of. 

Taken  as  a  whole.     Pickering  v.  Phillips,  10  Off.  Gaz.  420. 

Taking  each  part  separately.     Wheeler  v.  Clipper  Mower, 
&c.  Co.,  10  Blatch.  181;  6  Fisher,  1;  2  Off.  Gaz.  442. 
Is  a  tort.     Stein  v.  Goddard,  1  McAllister,  82. 
Trespass  on  the  case  for.     Chaffee  v.   Boston  Belting  Co.,  22 

How.  217. 
Unwitting  infringement,  only  compensatory  damages.     Parker 

V.  Corbin,  4  McLean,  402;  2  Robb,  736. 
Greater  utility  as  a  defense.     Many  v.  Sizer,  1  Fisher,  17. 
Immaterial  variations.     Russell  and  Ervvin  Manufacturing  Co. 

V.  Manufacturing  Co.,  12  Blatch.  30;  7  Off.  Gaz.  383. 
Not  considered   when   patent   is   void.      Kirby  v.   Dodge   and 

Stevenson  Manufacturing  Co.,  10  Blatch.  307;   6  Fisher, 

156;  3  Off.  Gaz.  181. 
(See  Admissions;   Allegation;    Hill;    Burden  of  Proof; 

Contract;    Corporation;    Damages;   Form;    Injunc- 
tion; Interference;  Joint  Owners;  Patent;  Suits; 

Uncertainty.) 

INJUNCTION. 

Assignee's  right  to  injunction  is  by  statute.     Jenkins  v.  Green- 

wald,  1  Bond,  126  ;  2  Fisher,  37. 
Bona  fide  issue.    Goodyear  v.  Dunbar,  3  Wall.  Jr.  310;  1  Fisher, 

472. 
Conditional.     Goodyear  v.   Housinger,  2  Bissell,  1;    3  Fisher, 

147. 


SYNOPSIS     OF    LAW    POINTS.  206 

Contempt,  violation  of  injunction. 

Violation  must  be  plainly  and  satisfactorily  shown.  Bird- 
sell  V.  Hagerstown  Agricultural  Implement,  &c.  Co.,  1 
Hughes,  59;  11  Off.  Gaz.  420. 

Selling  things  under  patent  not  considered  at  trial.  Buerk 
V.  Imhauser,  11  Off.  Gaz.  112. 

Substitution  of  equivalent.  Carstaedt  v.  United  States 
Corset  Co.,  13  Blateh.  371;  10  Off.  Gaz.  3. 

Effect  of  bond  acknowledging  validity.  Byam  v.  Eddy,  2 
Blateh.  521;  24  Vt.  666. 

Attachment  and  fine.     Craig  v.  Fisher,  5  Pac.  L.  R.  52. 

Amount  of  punishment,  poverty  of  defendant.  Double- 
day  V.  Sherman,  4  Fisher,  253. 

Sometimes  defendants  are  not  entitled  to  favor.  Goodyear 
V.  Mullee,  5  Blateh.  429;  3  Fisher,  209. 

Intention.    Goodyear  v.  Mullee,  5  Blateh.  463 ;  3  Fisher,  259. 

Defendant  cannot  leave  out  part  at  will  and  go  ahead. 
Hamilton  o.  Simons,  5  Bissell,  77. 

Advice  of  counsel  no  defense.  Hamilton  v.  Simons,  5  Bis- 
seU,  77. 

At  request  of  patentee's  agent,  conspiracy  charged. 
Knowles  v.  Peck,  42  Conn.  386. 

Article  never  sold  till  after  injunction,  not  properly  raised 
on  contempt.     Liddle  r.  Coiy,  7  Blateh.  1. 

Evident  non-infringement.  Xew  York  "\Yii-e  Rail  Co.  v. 
Walker,  2  Fisher,  179. 

By  using  equivalent.  Poppenhusen  v.  Xew  York  Gutta- 
percha Comb  Co.,  4  Blateh.  253 ;  2  Fisher,  SO. 

Enjoined  from  making  and  selling,  sells  as  agent.  Potter 
V.  Muller,  1  Bond,  601 ;  2  Fisher,  631. 

Studied  attempt  to  use  plaintiff's  invention.  Schillinger  v. 
Gunther,  14  Blateh.  152 ;  11  Off.  Gaz.  831. 

What  constitutes  violation.     Sickels  v.  Borden,  4  Blateh.  14. 

On  unconsidered  points.  Welling  v.  Rubber  Coated  Har- 
ness Trimming  Co.,  7  Off.  Gaz.  608. 

Attempt  to  invade.  WetherDl  v.  New  Jersey  Zinc  Co.,  5 
Off.  Gaz.  460. 

What  is  open  and  what  not.  Whipple  v.  Hutchinson,  4 
Blateh.  190. 


206  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Contempt,  violation  of  injunction  —  continued. 

Macliine  of  same  principle.     Woodworth  v.  Rogers,  3  W. 

&M.  135;  2  Robb,  625. 
Against  disclosure  of  invention  kept  secret.     Peabody  v.  Nor- 
folk, 98  Mass.  4.52. 
Dissolution  of  injunctions. 

Lack  of  interest.    Brammer  v.  Jones,  2  Bond,  100;  3  Fisher, 

340. 
Privity  of  purchaser.     Dayton  v.  Wright,  11  Off.  Gaz.  197. 
Laches  and  acquiescence.    Doubleday  v.  Sherman,  6  Blatch. 

513. 
Povper  of  district  judges.       Hussey  v.  Whitely,  1  Bond, 

407;  2  Fisher,  120. 
Injury  to  defendant  no  ground.    Hussey  v.  Whitely,  1  Bond, 

407;  2  Fisher,  120. 
Long  possession  by  plaintiff,   discretion   of  court.     Orr  v. 

Badger,  7  Law  Rep.  465. 
Trials  at  law,  proper  answers.     Orr  v.  Merrill,  1  W.  &  M. 

376;  2  Robb,  331. 
Defenses  not  proved  cannot  be  set  up.     Union  Paper  Bag 

Machine  Co.   v.   Newell,  11  Blatch.  549;  5  OfE.  Gaz. 

173. 
After  reissue.  Woodworth  v.  Stone,  3  Story,  749 ;  2  Robb,  296. 
Want  of  novelty.     Young  v.   Lippman,   9  Blatch.  283;  5 

Fisher,  230-  2  Off.  Gaz.  249. 
On  account  of  invalidity  of  extension.     Bloomer  v.  StoUy, 

5  McLean,  158. 
Prior  inventions  set  up  and  examined.     Frink  v.  Petry,  11 

Blatch.  422;  5  Off.  Gaz.  201. 
Granted,    license   from   plaintiff.      Goodyear   v.    Bourn,  3 

Blatch.  266. 
Particular  case,  not  absolute  dissolution.     Wilson  v.  Bar- 

num,  1  Wall.  Jr.  347;  2  Robb,  749. 
Suit  at  law  on  validity  not  brought  by  next  term.     Wood- 
worth  V.  Edwards,  3  W.  &  M.  120;  2  Robb,  610. 
Not   for    technical    objections    which    may    be    removed. 

Woodworth  o.  Hall,  1  W.  &  M.  389;  2  Robb,  517. 
New  evidence  improperly  neglected.    Woodworth  v.  Rogers, 

3  W.  &M.  135;  2  Robb,  625. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  207 

Granting. 

Suit  too  soon   after  issue.     Ayling  v.  Hull,  2  Cliff.  494; 
Hovey  v.  Stevens,  1  W.  &  M.  290;  2  Robb,  479. 
*  Not,  where  long  adverse  possession  by  defendant.    Cooper  u. 
Mattheys,  8  Law  Kep.  413;  Hall  v.  Speer,  6  Pitts.  L.  J. 
403. 
Not,  -where  facts  or  credibility  of  witnesses  have  to  be  de- 
cided.    Cooper  V.  Mattheys,  8  Law  Rep.  413. 
Doubt.     Isaacs  v.  Cooper,  4  Wash.  259;  1  Robb,  333. 

Granted  where  validity  fully  established,  in  spite  of  damage  to 
defendant.  Hodge  v.  Hudson  River  Railroad,  6  Blatch. 
165. 

Short  time  since  issue  and  no  adjudication  of  validity,  denied. 
Jones  v.  Field,  12  Blatch.  494. 

Against  suits  under  patents  not  yet  declared  invalid.  Asbestos 
Felting  Co.  V.  United  States  and  Foreign  Salamander  Felt- 
ing Co.,  13  Blatch.  453;  10  Off.  Gaz.  828. 

Generally,  license.     Bicknell  v.  Todd,  3  McLean,  236. 

From  suing  defendant's  vendees.  Birdsell  v.  Hagerstown  Agri- 
cultural Implement,  &c.  Co.,  1  Hughes,  -59;  11  Off.  Gaz.  420. 

Opens  question  of  merits.  Blake  v.  Rawson,  1  Holmes,  200;  6 
Fisher,  74;  3  Off.  Gaz.  122. 

Modifying.  Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  *;.  "Whitney,  31  Leg. 
Int.  229. 

Protection  for  defendants.  Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v. 
Whitney,  31  Leg.  Int.  229. 

Mischief  caused  by.     Day  v.  Candee,  3  Fisher,  9. 

Defendant's  stopping  no  reason  for  not  making  perpetual. 
Jenkins  v.  Green wald,  1  Bond,  126;  2  Fisher,  37. 

State  court  cannot  enjoin  United  States  courts.  Kendall  v. 
Winsor,  6  R.  I.  453. 

No  vindictive  injunctions.  Livingston  v.  Jones,  3  Wall.  Jr.  330; 
2  Fisher,  207. 

When  they  will  issue  against  defendant  holding  a  patent.  Mc- 
Comb  V.  Ernest,  1  Woods,  195. 

Against  waste.     Morse  v.  Oreilly,  6  Penn.  L.  J.  501. 

Rules  for  granting.     Ogle  v.  Ege,  4  Wash.  584;  1  Robb,  516. 

Undisturbed  possession,  sleeping  on  his  rights.  Orr  v.  Little- 
field,  1  W.  «&  M.  13;  2  Robb,  333. 


208  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Injury  to  defendant.  Orr  v.  Littlefield,  1  \Y.  &  M.  13;  2 
Robb,  333. 

May  issue  on  facts  found  by  Master  or  jury.  Parker  v.  Hat- 
field, 4  McLean,  61. 

Should  not  be  suspended  till  decree.  Potter  v.  Mack,  3  Fisher, 
428;  Rumford  Chemical  Works  v.  Heckev,  11  Off.  Gaz.  330. 

Terms  imposed  on  granting.  Rogers  v.  Abbott,  4  Wash.  514; 
1  Robb,  405. 

Irreparable  injury.     Sanders  v.  Logan,  2  Fisher,  167. 

Prior  suit  at  law  not  necessary.     Sanders  v.  Logan,  2  Fisher,  167. 

Nature  of  remedy.  Singer  Co.  v.  Union  Co.,  1  Holmes,  253; 
6  Fisher,  480;  4  Off.  Gaz.  553;  Woodworth  v.  Rogers,  3 
W.  &  M.  135 ;  2  Robb,  625. 

May  issue  to  stop  violation  of  contract  which  could  not  be  spe- 
cifically performed.  Singer  Co.  v.  Union  Co.,  1  Holmes, 
253;  6  Fisher,  480;  4  Off.  Gaz.  553. 

Equitable  release  by  plaintiff,  attachment  refused.  Smith  v. 
Patton,  6  Penn.  L.  J.  189. 

Refused,  valuable  improvements  by  defendant.  Staiuthorp  v. 
Humiston,  2  Fisher,  311. 

Will  not  issue  after  patent  has  expired.  Vaughan  v.  Central 
Pacific  Railroad,  4  Sawyer,  280. 

Reasonable  notice  of.     Wilson  v.  Stolly,  4  McLean,  273. 

When  they  will  issue,  long  possession.  Woodworth  v.  Hall,  1 
W.  &M.  248;  2  Robb,  495. 

Refusing.     Wyeth  v.  Stone,  1  Story,  273;  2  Robb,  23. 

(See  Account;  Appeal;  Contract;  Damages;  Jurisdic- 
tion.) 

INJURY. 

(See  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

INSTRUCTIONS. 
(See  Jury  ;  New  Trial  ;  Verdict.) 

INTENTION. 

(See   Abandonment;    Defective    Specification;    Injunc- 
tion; Penalty;  Uncertainty.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  209 

INTEREST. 
(See  Appeal;  Assignment;  Damages;  Suits;  Witnesses.) 

IXTERFEREXCE. 

What  it  is.     Bain  v.  !Morse,  6  West.  L.J.  372;  Gold  and  Silver 

Ore,  &c.  Co.  v.  United  States  Disintegrating  Co.,  3  Fisher, 

489. 
If  no  infiingement,  no  interference.      Smith  v.  Woodruff,    1 

Mc Arthur,  459;  6  Fisher,  476;  4  Off.  Gaz.  635. 
Is  for  Commissioner.     Gower,  Ex  parte.     15  Off.  Gaz.  828. 
Power  of  Commissioner  by  statute.     Potter  v.  Dixon,  5  Blatch. 

160;  2  Fisher,  381. 
Decision   of  Patent  Office  not  conclusive.      Union  Paper  Bag 

Machine  Co.  v.  Crane,  1  Holmes,  429;  6  Off.  Gaz.  801. 
Question   is,  Jirst  inventor.      Garratt  i'.  Seibert,  8  Otto,  75;  15 

Off.  Gaz.  383. 
Practice  of    putting  reissues   in   interference   with   unexpired 

patents  condemned.     Platts,  Ex  parte,  15  Off.  Gaz.  827. 
Interfering  patents   reissued   to   cover  each  other.      Smith  v. 

Allen,  2  Fisher,  572. 
(See  Commissioner;   Construction  of  Patents;  Jurisdic- 
tion.) 

INTERLOCUTORY    ORDERS. 

Subject  to  revision.      Magic  Ruffle   Co.  v.  Elm  City  Co.,  14 
Blatch.  109;  11  Off.  Gaz.  501. 

(See  Decree.) 

INTERPRETATION. 
(See  Assignment;  Contract;  Construction  of  Patents.) 

INTIMIDATION. 
(See  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

INVENTION. 

Accidental  making  is  not.     Pelton  i;.  Waters,  7  Off.  Gaz.  425. 

14 


210  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Approximations  to.     Sayles  r.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Rail- 
road, 3  Bissell,  52;  4  Fisher,  586. 
Of  compound  should  state  ingredients.     Jenkins  v.  Walker,  1 

Holmes,  120;  5  Fisher,  347;  1  Off.  Gaz.  359. 
What  constitutes.  Adams  v.  Edwards,  1  Fisher,  1 ;  Conover  v. 
Roach,  4  Fisher,  12;  Dunbar  v.  Myers,  4  Otto,  187;  11  Off. 
Gaz.  35;  Marsh  v.  Seymour,  7  Otto,  348;  13  Off.  Gaz.  723; 
Sanford  v.  Merrimack  Hat  Co.,  10  Off.  Gaz.  466;  Thompson 
V.  Haight,  1  U.  S.  L.  J.  563;  Tyler  v.  Devel,  8  Peun.  L.  J. 
248;  &c. 
Is  perfected  conception.      Woodbury  v.   Wilcox,  2   A.    L.    T. 

(U.  S.)  R.  129. 
Date  of.    . 

Is   date  of  discovery   and    attempt    to   embody.     Colt   v. 

Massachusetts  Arms  Co.,  1  Fisher,  108. 
Application  presumed  to  be,  in  lack  of  other  proof.     Dane 

V.  Chicago  Manufacturing  Co.,  2  Off.  Gaz.  677. 
Goes  back  to  discovery.     Dixon  v.  Moyer,  4  Wash.  68;  1 

Robb,  324. 
Shown  by  sketches  if  no  unreasonable  delay  since.     Draper 

V.  Potomska  Mills,  13  Off.  Gaz.  276. 
Shown  by  sketches.      Reeves  v.  Keystone  Bridge  Co.,    5 

Fisher,  456;  9  Phila.  368;  1  Off.  Gaz.  466. 
Burden  of  proof,  laying  aside  part  and  then  restoring  it. 

Johnson  v.  Root,  2  Cliff.  108;  2  Fisher,  291. 
Completed  and  in  private  use.      Knox  v.  Loweree,  6  Off. 

Gaz.  802. 
Reduced  to  practice  in  some  complete  form.     Matthews  v. 

Skates,  1  Fisher,  602. 
Practical   machine   without   knowing   its   uses.      Piper    v. 

Brown,  1  Holmes,  20;  4  Fisher,  175. 
Speculation  reduced  to  practice.     Roberts  i'.  Reed  Torpedo 

Co.,  3  Fisher,  629. 
Date  of  first  conception   and   first   description.     Sayles  v. 

Ilapgood,  2  Bissell,  189;  3  Fisher,  632. 
Estoppel  by  prior  statement.     Union  Paper  Bag  Machine 

Co.  V.  Crane,  1  Holmes,  429;  6  Off.  Gaz.  801. 
Must  be  proved  if  earlier  than  application,  there  is  no  pre- 
sumption.    Wing  V.  Richardson,  2  Cliff.  449;  2  Fisher, 

535. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  211 

Date  of  —  continued. 

Conception  of  idea  as  afterwards  patented.     Woodman  v. 
Stimpson,  3  Fisher,  98. 

Invention  to  cure  theoretical  defects.  Aiken  v.  Dolan,  3 
Fisher,  197. 

For  improvements.  Merrill  v.  Yeomans,  4  Otto,  568;  11  Off. 
Gaz.  970. 

Charge  of  irregularity  must  be  proved.  Johnson  v.  Root,  2 
Cliff.  108;  2  Fisher,  291. 

Pirated,  does  not  defeat  inventor's  right.  Kendall  v.  Winsor, 
21  How.  322. 

Are  tlie  same  if  so  in  fact,  though  different  in  effect.  Merrill. 
Rufus  S.,  5  Off.  Gaz.  120. 

Valuable.     Wilson  v.  Turner,  Taney,  Dec.  278. 

(See  CoNSTKucTioN  OF  Patents;  Employe;  Estoppel;  In- 
junction; Inventor;  Joint  Owners;  Original  In- 
ventor; Patent;  Prior  Use;  Publications;  Reissue; 
Secrecy;  Statute;  Want  of  Novelty.) 


INVENTOR. 

Who  is  entitled  to  patent.     Ball  v.  Murry,  10  Penn.  St.  111. 

First  in  fact,  not  by  patents.  Allen  v.  Blunt,  2  W.  &  M.  121; 
2  Robb,  530. 

First  who  perfects  and  adapts  to  actual  use.  Albright  v.  Cellu- 
loid Harness  Trimming  Co.,  12  Oft'.  Gaz.  227;  Whitely  ^). 
Swayne,  7  Wall.  685. 

First  inventor  in  law.  Woodcock  v.  Parker,  1  Gall.  438;  1 
Robb,  ,37. 

Honest  belief,  patent  abroad  just  afterwards  to  strengthen  it. 
Aiken  v.  Dolan,  3  Fisher,  197. 

Of  improvements.  Colt  v.  Massachusetts  Arms  Co.,  1  Fisher, 
108;  Conover  r.  Rapp,  4  Fisher,  57;  Cook  v.  Howard,  4 
Fisher,  269;  Watson  v.  Bladen,  4  Wash.  580;  1  Robb,  510. 

Of  combinations.     Cahill  v.  Brown,  15  Off.  Gaz.  697. 

Oath  of.     Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.  516. 

Of  part.  Goodyear  v.  Matthews,  1  Paine,  300;  1  Robb,  .50; 
Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall.  478;  1  Robb,  40. 


212  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Of  part  claiming  whole.     Batten  v.  Taggert,  2  Wall.  Jr.  101 ; 

Batten  v.  Taggert,  17  How.  74. 
Patent  p-imrt /acie  evidence  of  his  rights.     Heinrich  v.  Luther, 

6  McLean,  34.5. 
Patentee  of  improvement  cannot  afterwards  patent  the  whole. 

Turner  v.  Green,  2  Cranch,  C.  C.  287. 
Peculiar  disadvantages  of  some  inventors.     McCormick  v.  Sey- 
mour, 3  Blatch.  209. 
Prima  facie  rights.     Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v. 

Williams,  2  Fisher,  132. 
Inventor  is  purchaser  from  public,  description  is  the  considera- 
tion.    AVintermute  v.  Redington,  1   Fisher,  239. 
Rights. 

Only  one  royalty  for  one  machine.     Bloomer  v.  Millenger, 
1  Wall.  340. 

None  at  common  law.     Dudley  v.  Mayhew,  3  N".  Y.  9. 

What  they  are.     Evans  v.  Weiss,  2  Wash.  342;  1  Robb, 
10. 

Are  federal.     Hollida  v.  Hunt,  70  111.  109. 

Notice  to  public  of.     Hovey  v.  Rubber  Tip  Pencil  Co. ,  33 
N.  Y.  Supr.  522. 

To  treble  damages  under  patent   law.      Keplinger  v.  De 
Young,  10  Wheat.  358;  1  Robb,  458. 

Of  subsequent  inventors  to  have  patent  clear.     Merrill  v. 
Yeomans,  4  Otto,  568;  11  Off.  Gaz.  970. 

Against  purchasers.     Mitchell  v.  Havvley,  16  Wall.  544;  3 
Off.  Gaz.  241. 

Equivalents.     Singer  v.  AValraesley,  1  Fisher,  558. 

To  his  invention.     Sloat  v.  Patton,  1  Fisher,  154. 
Suggestions.     Agawam  Co.  v.  Jordan,  7  AVall.  583. 
(See  Construction    of    Patents;   Dedication;  Lnterfer- 

ENCE.) 

IRREGULARITY. 
(See  Invkntion  ;  Pleading.) 

ISSUE. 
Feigned  issues.      Foote   v.    Silsby,  1  Blatch.   545;  Goodyear  o. 
Providence  Rubber  Co.,  2  Cliff.  351;  2  Fisher,  499. 


SYNOPSIS    OP    LAW    POINTS.  213 

No  decision  of  poiuts  not  in  issue.  Celluloid  Manufacturing 
Co.  V.  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.,  13  Blatch.  375; 
10  Off.  Gaz.  41. 

For  jury  or  for  master.     Parker  v.  Hatfield,  4  McLean,  61. 

Of  patent,  remedy  for  unintentional  issue.  Doughty  v.  West, 
6  Blatch.  429 ;  3  Fisher,  580. 

(See  Assignment.) 

JOINDER. 

(See  Assignee;  Parties.) 

JOINT  ACTION. 

(See  Suits.) 

JOINT    OWNERS. 

Are  not  copartners.     Pitts  v.  Hall,  3  Blatch.  20. 

Cannot  recover  from  each  other  for  infringement.      De  Witt  v. 

Elmira  Nobles  Manufacturing  Co.,  66  N.  Y.  459;  Vose  v. 

Singer,  4  Allen  (Mass.),  226. 
Joint  patent  for  sole  invention  is  bad.     Slemmer's  Appeal,  58 

Penn.  St.  155. 
Rights  of  joint  owners.     Pitts  v.  Hall,  3  Blatch.  20. 
.(See  CoxsTUucTiON  of  Patents;  Infringement;    License; 
Partners;  Patent.) 

JUDGMENT. 
(See  Court;  Estoppel;  Pleading.) 

JUDICIAL    NOTICE. 
Brown  v.  Piper,  1  Otto,  37;  10  Off.  Gaz.  417. 

JURAT. 

Date  of.     French  i'.  Rogers,  1  Fisher,  133. 

JURISDICTION. 
Account  without  injunction.     Blank  v.  Manufacturing  Co.,  3 
WaU.  Jr.  196. 


214  PATENT  CASE  INDEX, 

Account  and  discovery  without  injunction.     Sickels  v.  Glouces- 
ter Manufacturing  Co.,  1  Fisher,  222. 
Effect  of  appearance  of  defendant  out  of  jurisdiction.     Good- 
year V.  Chaffee,  3  Blatch.  268. 
Appearance  and  plea  by  attorney  admits  jurisdiction.     Thayer 

V.  Wales,  5  Fisher,  448. 
Appellate  jurisdiction  of  Circuit  Courts.     Stearns  v.  Barrett,  1 

Mason,  153;  1  Robb,  97. 
Of  bills  for  discovery.     Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Elm  City  Co.,  14 

Blatch.  109;  11  Off.  Gaz.  501. 
On  certificate  of  division  is  only  for  law  points.     Wilson  v.  Bar- 

num,  8  How.  258. 
Citizenship. 

Depends    on    subject-matter,    not    citizenship.      Allen    v. 

Blunt,  1  Blatch.  480. 
Generally.     Goodyear  v.  Union  Rubber  Co.,  4  Blatch.  63; 
Merserole  v.  Union  Paper  Collar  Co.,  6  Blatch.  356;  3 
Fisher,  483. 
Both  parties  of  same  State.     Littlefield  v.  Perry,  21  Wall. 
205;    7  Off.   Gaz.  964;    Livingston  v.   Van  Ingen,   1 
Paine,  45. 
When  objection  should  be  taken.     Nesmith  v.  Calvert,  1 

W.  &M.  34;  2  Robb,  311. 
Evidence.     Stainthorp  v.  Humiston,  4  Fisher,  107. 
Contract.     Brown  v.  Shannon,  20  How.  55. 

Cancelling.    Brooks  v.  Stolly,  3  McLean,  523;  2  Robb,  281. 
Circuit   Court,    agreement  to   sell.     Rice  v.  Garnhart,  34 
Wise.  453. 
Corporation. 

Foreign,  found   in    State.     Day   v.  Newark   India-rubber 
Co.,  1  Blatch.  028;  Williams  v.  Empire  Transportation 
Co.,  14  Off.  Gaz.  523. 
Waiver  by.      Decker   v.  New  York   Belting,   &c.    Co.,   6 

Fisher,  374;  3  Off.  Gaz.  441. 
Is  under  United  States  laws.     Elm  City  Co.  v.  Wooster,  6 
Fisher,  452;  4  Off.  Gaz.  83. 
Court  of  District  of  Columbia.     Cochrane  v.  Deener,  4  Otto, 
789;    11   Off.    Gaz.   687;   Mason  v.   Rowley,  3  A.  L.  T. 
(U.  S.)  R.  8. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  215 

Court,  Circuit. 

Prior  jurisdiction  in  State  court.  Brandon  Manufacturing 
Co.  V.  Prime,  14  Biatch.  371. 

Used  in  France  for  Frencli  vessel.  Brown  v.  Duchesne,  2 
Curtis,  371. 

None  where  validity  is  not  involved.  Burr  v.  Gregory,  2 
Paine,  426. 

Equity.  Continental  Windmill  Co.  v.  Empire  Windtaill 
Co.,  8  Biatch.  295;  4  Fisher,  428. 

Equity,  suit  at  law  not  a  prerequisite.  McMillin  v.  Bar- 
clay, 5  Fisher,  189. 

Exclusive  in  United  States  courts.  Mitchell  v.  Tilghman, 
19  Wall.  287. 

Under  United  States  laws.  Nesmith  v.  Calvert,  1  W.  &M. 
34;  2Robb,  311. 

In  patent  suits.     Xevins  v.  Johnson,  3  Biatch.  80. 

Of  interfering  patents  is  original,  not  appellate.  Squire, 
J.  L.,  In  re,  12  Off.  Gaz.  1025. 

Equity  in  patents,  acquiescence  and  enjoyment.  Sullivan  v. 
Redfield,  1  Paine,  441  ;  1  Kobb,  477. 
Courts,  State.  Boston  and  Fair  Haven  Iron  Works  v.  Monta- 
gue, 108  Mass.  248;  De  Witt  v.  Elmira  Nobles  Manu- 
facturing Co.,  5  Hun  (N.  Y.),  301 ;  Burrall  v.  Jewett,  2 
Paige  (N.  Y.),  134;  Elmer  v.  Pennel,  40  Maine,  430; 
Kendall  v.  Win.sor,  6  R.  I.  453;  Leonard  v.  Barnum,  34 
Wise.  105 ;  Lindsay  v.  Roraback,  4  Jones,  Eq.  (N.  C.) 
124;  Lockwood  v.  Lockwood,  33  Iowa,  198;  Page  v. 
Dickerson,  28  Wise.  694;  Rich  v.  Atwater,  16  Conn. 
409;  Whitehead  v.  Kitson,  119  Mass.  484. 

None  in  State  courts  where  validity  is  involved.  Dudley 
V.  Mayhew,  3  N.  Y.  9;  Gibson  v.  Woodworth,  8  Paige 
(N.  Y.),  132;  Green  v.  Willard  Improved  Barrel  Co., 
1  Mo.  App.  202;  Hovey  v.  Rubber  Tip  Pencil  Co.,  33 
N.  Y.  Supr.  522;  Parsons  v.  Barnard,  7  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 
144;  Slemmer's  Appeal,  58  Penn.  St.  155;  Smith  v. 
McClelland,  11  Bush  (Ky.),  523;  Stone  v.  Edwards, 
35  Texas,  556 ;  Tomlinson  r.  Battel,  4  Abb.  (N.  Y.)  266. 

Have  jurisdiction  where  patents  come  in  collaterally.  Bil- 
lings V.  Ames,  32  Mo.  265. 


216  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Courts  —  continued. 

Equity,  full  legal  remedy.     Black  v.  Stone,  33  Ala.  327. 
Have,  breach  of  warranty,  false  representations.     Hunt  v. 

Hoover,  24  Iowa,  231. 
Have,  of  contract  even  if  patent  is  involved.     Middlebrook 

V.  Broadbent,  47  N.  Y.  443. 
Have,  where  validity  is  not  necessarily  involved.     Sherman 

V.  Champlain  Transportation  Co.,  31  Vt.  162. 
Have,  of  contracts,  false  representations.     Snow  v.  Judson, 

38  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  210. 
Patent  lottery  cannot  be  used  where  illegal.     Vannini  v. 

Pg-ine,  1  Harr.  (Del.)  65. 
Have,  except  where  validity  is  involved:    "Wright  v.  Wilson, 
11  Ptich.  (S.  C.)  144. 
License  transferred.     Bloomer  v.  Gilpin,  4  Fisher,  50. 
Of  quantum  valebant  for  use.     Battin  v.  Kear,  2  Phila.  301. 
Surrogate,  domicile  of  patentee  when  he  died.    Providence  Rub- 
ber Co.  V.  Goodyear,  9  Wall.  788. 
To  vacate  patent.      Attorney-General   v.    Rumford  Chemical 

Works,  9  Off.  Gaz.  1062. 
(See  Commissioner;  Equity;  New  Trial;  Sale;  Waiver.) 

JURY. 

In  chancery.     Brooks  v.  Norcross,  2  Fisher,  661;  Ely  v.  Mon- 

son,  &c.  Co.,  4  Fisher,  64. 
Form  of  instructions  to.     Pitts  v.  Whitman,   2  Story,  609;  2 

Robb,  189. 
Weight  of  decision  by,  in  patent  suits.     Roberts  v.  Schuyler,  12 

Blatch.  444. 
Duty  of.     Singer  v.  Walmesley,  1  Fisher,  558. 
Province  of.     Hayden  v.  Suffolk  Manufacturing  Co.,  4  Fisher, 

86. 
Identity  is  for  jury.     Tucker  v.    Spaulding,  13  Wall.  453;  5 

Fisher,  297;  1  Off.  Gaz.  144. 
Effect  of  juryman  taken  ill.     Foote  v.  Silsby,  1  Blatch.  445; 

Silsby  V.  Foote,  14  IIow.  218. 
Identity  of  two  patents  not  on  their  face.     Hawkes  v.  Reming- 
ton, 111  Mass.  171. 


SYNOPSIS     OF     LAW     POINTS.  217 

Questions  left  to.     Carver  v.  Braintree  Manufacturing  Co.,  2 

Story,  432;  2  Robb,  441;  Foote  v.  Silsby,  1  Blatch.  445. 
Trial  by  jury.     Cahoon  v.  Ring,  1  Cliff.  592 ;  1  Fisher,  397. 

In  patent  causes.     Buchanan  v.  Howland,  5  Blatch.  151 ;  2 

Fisher,  341. 
In  equity,  province  of  court.     Goodyear  v.  Day,  2  Wall.  Jr. 

283. 
In  England  and  here.     Motte  v.  Bennett,  2  Fisher,  642. 
Time  to  request  court  to  charge.     Vaughau  v.  Porter,  16  Vt. 

266. 
(See  Damages;  Issue;  New  Trial;  Reissue;  Suits;  Use- 
FULXESS ;  Validity.  ) 

KNOWLEDGE  OF   PATENTEE. 

(See  Abandoned  Experiments  ;   Prior  Use  ;    Public 

Action.) 

LACHES. 

(See  Answer  ;  Bill  ;  Contract  ;  Forfeiture  ;  Injunc- 
tion; Preliminary  In.icnctions;  Reissue.) 

LANGUAGE. 
(See  Construction  of  Patents;  Reissue.) 

LAPSE   OF   TIME. 
(See  Abandonment  ;  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

LAW. 
(See  Inventor  ;  Patents;  Suits.) 

LEGAL  REPRESENTATIVES. 
(See  Assignee  ;  Suits.) 

LEGISLATION. 
(See  Sale.) 


218  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

LIABILITY. 

(See  CORPOKATION.) 

LICENSE. 

What  it  is.     Jones  v.  Burnham,  67  Me.  63. 

Assignability.  Belding  v.  Turner,  8  Blatch.  321 ;  4  Fisher,  446  ; 
Bloomer  v.  Gilpin,  4  Fisher,  50;  Wilson  v.  Stolly,  5  Mc- 
Lean, 1. 

As  a  defense.  Hammond  v.  Organ  Co.,  1  Holmes,  296  ;  6  Fisher, 
599;  5  Off.  Gaz.  31;  Hammond  v.  Organ  Co.,  2  Otto,  724; 
Hartshorn  v.  Day,  19  How.  211 ;  Wilson  v.  Stolly,  4  Mc- 
Lean, 275. 

Exclusive,  excludes  patentee  or  grantor.  Ferree  v.  Smith,  29 
La.  Ann.  811. 

Exclusive,  void  patent  no  consideration.  Harlow  v.  Putnam, 
124  Mass.  553. 

Effect  of  extension.  Hodge  v.  Hudson  River  Railroad,  6 
Blatch.  165. 

Before  extension,  and  use  after.  Day  v.  Union  India-rubber 
Co.,  3  Blatch.  488. 

Forfeiture  by  abandonment  or  neglect.  Wilson  v.  Stolly,  5 
McLean,  1. 

Evidence  of  forfeiture.     Wilson  v.  Stolly,  4  McLean,  275. 

Fraud.     Beane  v.  Orr,  9  Off.  Gaz.  255. 

From  one  joint-owner.  Dunham  v.  Indiana  and  St.  Louis  Rail- 
road, 7  Bissell,  223. 

Joint  recovery,  other  licenses.  Florence  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v. 
Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.,  110  Mass.  70. 

Held  by  plaintiffs.  Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v. 
Williams,  2  Fisher,  132. 

Recording.     Chambers  v.  Smith,  5  Fisher,  12. 

Rights  of  licensees.  Dorsey  Revolving  Harvester  Rake  Co.  ». 
Bradley  Manufacturing  Co.,  12  Blatch.  202. 

Territorial  license  to  use,  use  outside.  Wicke  v.  Kleinknecht, 
7  Off.  Gaz.  1098. 

To  use.     Black  v.  Hubbard,  12  Off.  Gaz.  892. 

To  use  one  uses  another.  England  v,  Thompson,  3  Cliff. 
271. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW     POINTS,  219 

Verbal.     Bell  v.  INIcCulloch,  1  Bond,  194;  1  Fisher,  380. 

(See  Assignment;  Contract;  Defense;  Estoppel;  For- 
feiture;  Infringement;  Injunction;  Jurisdiction; 
Preliminary  Injunctions;  Sale;  Suits;  Use;  Use- 
fulness.) 

LICENSE   FEE. 
(See  Damages.) 

LICENSEE. 
(See  License.) 

LIMITATIONS. 

Acts  of  limitations.     Vaughan  v.  East  Tennessee,  Virginia,  and 

Georgia  Railroad,  11  Otf.  Gaz.  789. 
In  patent  suits. 

No  statute  of  limitations.     Parker  v.   Hallock,   2  Fisher, 

543. 
State  statutes.     Collins  v.  Peebles,  2  Fisher,  541. 
State  statute  is  good  plea.     Parker  v.  Hawk,  2  Fisher,  58 ; 

Rich  V.  Ricketts,  7  Blatch.  230. 
State  statute  cannot  be  pleaded.     Anthony  v.    Carroll,  9 
Off.  Gaz.  199 ;  Read  v.  Rliller,  2  Bissell,  12 ;  3  Fisher, 
310. 

(See  Penalty.) 

LITIGATION. 
(See  Damages.) 

LOCATION. 
(See  Patentability  ;  Want  of  Novelty.) 

LOSS. 
(See  Damages.) 

LOTTERY. 
(See  Jurisdiction.) 


220  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


MANDAMUS. 

When  it  will  lie.     Commissioner  of  Patents  v.  Whitely,  4-  Wall. 

522. 
To  Commissioner  of  Patents  by  Supreme  Court  of  District  of 

Columbia.     Mason  v.  Rowley,  3  A.  L.  T.  (U.  S.)  R.  8. 
(See  Commissioner ;  Nkw  Tkial;  Repeal.) 

MASTER. 
Attachment  for  his  fees.     Myers  v.  Dunbar,  8  Off.  Gaz.  321. 
Applies  principles  laid  down  by  court.     Turrill  v.  Illinois  Cen- 
tral Railroad,  5  Bissell,  344. 
May  examine  books,  &c.     Brady  v.  Atlantic  Works,  15  Off.  Gaz. 

.965. 
Evidence  before,  dividing  royalties.     Kendrick  v.  Emmons,  15 

Off.  Gaz.  966. 
Fees  of.     Doughty  v.  West,  Bradley,  and  Cary  Manufacturing 

Co.,  4  Fisher,  518. 
Hearings  on  reference.     Doughty  v.  AVest,   Bradley,  and  Cary 

Manufacturing  Co.,  4  Fisher,  318. 
Reference  to.     Packet  Co.  r.  Sickles,  19  Wall.  611. 
Reference  to,  is  not  res  adjudicatce.     Rumford  Chemical  Works 

V.  Hecker,  11  Off.  Gaz.  330. 
Should  hand  in  a  report,  not  file  papers  on  the  docket.     Union 

Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthieson,  3  Cliff.  146. 

(See  Costs;  Damages;  Injunction;  Issue.) 

MASTER'S   REPORT. 

Exceptions.     Black  v.  Munsen,  14  Blatch.  265. 

Exceptions  to  ruling  must  be  made  at  the  time.     Troy  Iron  and 

Nail  Factory  v.  Corning,  6  Blatch.  328;  3  Fisher,  497. 
Finding  of  facts.     Piper  v.  Brown,  1  Holmes,  196;  6  Fisher, 

240;  3  Off.  Gaz.  97. 
Suspension  of  decree  till  Master  reports.     Whitney  v.  Mowry,  2 

Bond,  45;  3  Fisher,  157. 

(See  Appeal.) 

MATERIAL. 
(See  Patentability;  Want  op  Novelty.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  221 

MECHANICS. 
(See  Experts  ;  Uncertainty.) 

MEDICINE. 

Practice  must  be  according  to  State  law.  Jordan  v.  Dayton,  4 
Ohio,  295;  Smith  v.  Tracy,  2  Hall  (N.  Y.),465;  Thompson 
V.  Staats,  15  AVend.  (X.  Y.)  395. 

MEMORY. 
(See  Evidence.) 

MISCHIEF. 

(See  Injunction.) 

MISJOINDER. 
(See  Parties  ;  Pleading.) 

MISNOMER. 

(See  Note  ;  Patent.) 

MISREPRESENTATIONS. 
(See  Contract.) 

MISTAKE. 

(See  Disclaimer  ;    Drawing  ;    Equity  ;  Rehearing; 
Reissue.) 

MODE  OF  OPERATION. 
(See  Infringement.) 

MODELS. 
(See  Costs;  Reissue;  Want  of  Novelty.) 


222  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


MONEY. 

Paid  into  court  and  claimed  by  both  parties.  Florence  Sewing 
Machine  Co.  v.  Singer  Sewing  Machine  Co.,  8  Blatch.  177; 
4  Fisher,  348. 

Deposited  for  articles  prescribed  by  government  not  recoverable. 
Nusbamn  v.  Emery,  3  Bissell,  469. 

(See  Contract;  Suits.) 

MONOPOLY. 

(See  CoNSTRUCTiox  OF  Patents;  Sale.) 

MORTGAGE. 

Chattel.     Boston  and  Fair  Haven  lion  Works  r.  Montague,  108 

Mass.  248. 
Foreclosure.     Boston  and  Fair  Haven  Iron  Works  v.  Montague, 

108  Mass.  248;  Pacific  Iron  Works  v.  Newhall,  34  Conn.  67. 

MOTIONS. 

To  dismiss.     Chaffee  v.  Hay  ward,  20  How.  208. 
For  trial  at  law,  when  granted.     Howe  v.  Williams,  2  Fisher, 
395. 

MULTIFARIOUSNESS. 

(See  Pleading.) 

NEGLECT. 

(See  Abandonment;  License.) 

NEGLIGENCE. 
(See  Disclaimer  ;  Laches  ;  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

NEGOTIATIONS. 

(See  Contract.) 

NEW  TRIAL. 
Action  at  law.     Carr  i;.  Rice,  4  Blatch.  200;  1  Fisher,  325. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  223 

Verdict  against  evidence.     Aiken  v.  Bemis,  3  W.  &  M.  348 ;  2 
Robb.  644 ;  Allen  v.  Blunt,  2  W.  &  M.  121 ;  2  Robb, 
530;    Ames  v.  Howard,  1  Sunin.  482;  1  Robb,  689; 
Blanchard  Gunstock  Factory  v.  Jacobs,  2  Blatch.  69 ; 
Bray  v.  Hartsliorn,  1  Cliif.  538;  Gray  v.  James,  Peters, 
C.  C.  476 :  1  Robb,  140 ;  Roberts  v.  Schuyler,  12  Blatch. 
444 ;  Wilson  v.  Janes,  3  Blatch.  227. 
Preponderance  must  be  clear.     Brooks  i>.  Bicknell,  4  Mc- 
Lean, 70. 
Not  if  evidence  conflicts.     Stanley  v.  Whipple,  2  IMcLean, 
35;  2  Robb,  1. 
Excessive  damages.     Alden  v.  Dewey,  1  Story,  336;  2  Robb,  17. 
Rejection  of  evidence.     Buck  v.  Hermance,  1  Blatch.  322. 
Erroneous    instruction    on   damages.      Cowing   v.    Rumsey,   8 

Blatch.  36;  4  Fi.sher,  275. 
Jurisdiction.     Allen  v.  Blunt,  1  Blatch.  480. 
Jury  misunderstanding  the  court.    Sherman  v.  Champlain  Trans- 
portation Co.,  31  Vt.  162. 
Mandate,  judgment  still  unreversed.     Evans  r.  Eaton,  Peters, 

C.  C.  322;  1  Robb,  193. 
Ruling  of  court. 

That  printed  publications  must  be  before  invention,   not 
application.     Bartholomew  v.  Sawyer,  4  Blatch.  347; 
1  Fisher,  516. 
On  existence  of  corporations.      Blanchard  Gunstock  Fac- 
tory V.  Warner,  1  Blatch.  258. 
Jury   being   waived.     Carver  v.   Braintree   Manufacturing 
Co.,  2  Story,  432;  2  Robb,  441. 
Surprise  and  new  evidence.     Foote  v.  Silsby,  1  Blatch.  445. 
Surprise,  reasonable  diligence.     Washburn  v.  Gould,  3  Story, 

122;  2  Robb,  206. 
Court  sustaining  the  patent.     Bennett  v.  Fowler,  8  Wall.  445; 
Blake  v.  Stafford,  6  Blatch.  195;  3  Fisher,  295. 
(See  Prf,limix.\ky  Injunctions.) 

NOMINAL. 
(See  Damages.) 

NONJOINDER. 
(See  Pauties.) 


224  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


NONSUIT. 

Only  by  consent  of  plaintiff.     Silsby  v.  Foote,  14  How.  218; 

Sone  V.  Palmer,  28  Mo.  539. 
Power  to  order.     Foote  v.  Silsby,  1  Blatch.  445. 
Variance.     Aiken   v.    Bemis,  3   W.  &  M.  348;  2  Robb,   644; 

Tryon  v.  White,  1  Robb,  64. 

NOTARY. 

Powers  of.     Buerk  v.  Imhauser,  10  Off.  Gaz.  907. 

Seal  of.     Goodyear  v.  Hulliheu,  2  Hughes,  492;  3  Fisher,  251. 

NOTE. 
Consideration. 

Void  patent   is  a  defense.     Bierce  v.   Stocking,   11  Gray 

(Mass.),  174;  Bliss  v.  Negus,   8  Mass.  46;  Cowan  v. 

Mitchell,  11  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  87;  Cragin  v.  Fowler,  34 

Vt.  326;  Darst  v.  Brockway,  11  Ohio,  462;  Dickinson 

V.  Hall,   14  Pick.   217;   Earl  v.  Page,  6  N.   H.  477; 

Elmer  v.  Peuuel,  40  Me.  430;  First  National  Bank  v. 

Peck,  8  Kansas,  600. 
Sealed.     Geiger  v.  Cook,  3  W.   &  S.   (Penn.)  266;  Lester 

V.  Palmer,  4  Allen  (Mass.),  145;  Midkiff  v.  Boggess, 

15  Ind.  210;  Peck  v.  Farrington,  9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  44; 

Rowe  V.  Blanchard,  18  Wise.   441 ;  Scott  v.  Sweet,  2 

G.  Greene  (Iowa),  224. 
Not  a  good  defense,  without  fraud.     Cowan   v.   Dodd,  3 

Cold.    (Tenn.)   278;  Jones   v.   Burnham,   67  Me.   93; 

Williams  v.  Hicks,  2  Vt.  36. 
Revenue.     Davy  v.  Morgan,  56  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  218. 
Misnomer  of  invention  in  conveyance.     Harmon  v.  Bird,  22 

AVend. 113. 
False  representations.     Johnson  v.  McCabe,   37  Ind.  535; 

Page  V.  Dickerson,  28  Wise.  694. 
Assignment  not  recorded,  so  no  title  in  seller.     Mulliken  v. 

Latchem,  7  Blackf.  (Ind.)  136. 
Indorsement  by  payee.     Saxton  v.  Dodge,  57  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

84. 
Lack  of  title,  admissibility.     Stevens  v.  Head,  9  Vt.  174. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  225 

Consideration  —  continued. 

Worthless  patent  not  admissible  under  general  issue.    Wil- 
liams V.  Hicks,  2  Vt.  36. 
Failure  of  consideration,  reassignment  of  half -interest.     Clark 

V.  Smith,  21  Minn.  539. 
Defense  of  false  representations.     Groff  v.  Hansel,  33  Md.  161 ; 

Rose  V.  Hurley,  39  Ind.  77;  Van  Ostrand  v.  Reed,  1  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  424. 
Fraud.     Burns  v.  Barnes,  58  Ind,  438;  Lane  v.  Smith,  68  Me. 

178. 
Receiving  void  notes  as  agent,  for  machines  sold.     Osborn  v, 

Herron,  28  Ga.  313. 
Wlien  note  is  equivalent  to  payment.     Van  Ostrand  v.  Reed,  1 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  424. 
Ohio  law  on  negotiable  notes  for  patents.     State  v.  Brov^-er,  30 

Ohio  St.  101 ;  State  v.  Peck,  25  Ohio  St.  26. 
Warranty.     Hawes   v.    Twogood,    12   Iowa,    582;   McClure   v. 

Jeffrey,  8  Ind.  79;  Street  v.  Silver,  Brightly  (Penn.),  96. 
Want  of  Xovelty.     Butch  v.  Boyer,  8  Phila.  (Penn.)  57. 

(See   Contract  ;    Estoppel  ;    Evidence  ;    Patent  ; 
Pleading.) 

NOTICE. 

(See  Cross-bill;  Defense;  Evidence;  Injunction;  In- 
ventor; Pleading;  Preliminary  Injunctions  ;  Prior 
Knowledge;  Prior  Use;  Suits;  Witnesses.) 

XOVELTY. 
(See  Definition  ;  Extension  ;  Want  of  Novelty.) 

OATH. 

(See   Alien;    Bill;   Inventor;   Practice;   Reissue; 
Validity.) 

OBJECTIONS. 

(See  Pleading ;  Reissue;  Witnesses.) 

15 


226  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

OHIO   LAW. 
(See  Assignment;  Note.) 

OMISSION. 
(See  Publications ;  Reissue;  Uncertainty.) 

ORIGINAL  INVENTOR. 

Patent  jonma /aci'e  evidence.     (Almost  everywhere.) 
Abandoned  experiments.    Stainthorp  v.  Elkinton,  1  Fisher,  349. 
Suggestions.     Agawam  Co.  v.  Jordan,  7  Wall.  583. 
Outgrowth   belongs   to  originator  of    conception.      Blandy  v. 

Griffeth,  3  Fisher,  609. 
Fraud.     Brady  v.  Atlantic  Works,  10  Off.  Gaz.  702. 
French  patents.     Brooks  v.  Norcross,  2  Fisher,  661. 
Utility  as  evidence.     Buchanan  v.  Howland,  5  Blatch.  151;  2 

Fisher,  341. 
Race  of  diligence.     Johnson  v.  Root,  1  Fisher,  351.     ' 
Suggestions.     Matthews  v.  Skates,  1  Fisher,  602. 
Information  obtained  from  scientific  men.     Oreilly  v.  Morse,  15 

How.  62. 
Under  provisions  of  jiatent  law.     Pitts  v.  Hall,  2  Blatch.  229. 
Must  be  so  for  the  whole  world.     Sewall  v.  Jones,  1  Otto,  171 ; 

9  Off.  Gaz.  47. 
Effect  of  suggestions.     Slemmer's  Appeal,  58  Penn.  St.  155. 
Utility  as  a  test.     Stanley  Works  v.  Sargent  &  Co.,  8  Blatch. 

344;  4  Fisher,  443. 
Fact  must  be  sworn  to  in  bill.     Sullivan  v.  Redfield,  1  Paine, 

441 ;  1  Robb,  477. 
Suggestions.     Thomas  v.  Weeks,  2  Paine,  92. 
Burden  of  proof.     Tompkins  v.  Gage,  5  Blatch.  269;  2  Fisher, 

577. 
Prior  patent  by  same  inventor  for  same  invention.    Treadwell  v. 

Bladen,  4  Wash.  703;  1  Robb,  531. 
Practicability  in  view  of  state  of  art.     Treadwell  v.  Parrott,  5 

Blatch.  370;  3  Fisher,  124. 
Patent  suiTeptitiously  obtained.      Union  Paper  Bag  Machine 

Co.  V.  Pultz  and  Walkley  Co.,  15  Off.  Gaz.  423. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  227 

State  of  the  art.     United  Nickel  Co.  v.  Keith,  1  Holmes,  328; 

5  Off.  Gaz.  272. 
Prior  invention  must  be  useful.      Waterman  v.  Thompson,  2 

Fisher,  461. 
Who    "first  inventor"    is.     Wliite   v.  Allen,  2  Cliff.   224;    2 

Fisher,  440. 
How  far  presumption  from  issue  of  patent  extends.     Wing  v. 

Richardson,  2  Cliff.  449;  2  Fisher,  535. 
State  of  the  art.     Wing  v.  Schoonmaker,  8  Fisher,  607. 
(See  Abandoned  Experiments.) 

OUTGROWTH. 
(See  OuiGiNAL  Inventor.) 

OYER. 
(See  Patent.) 

PAPERS. 
(See  Contract;  Practice.) 

PART. 
(See  Infringement ;  Inventor;  Patent;  Reissue.) 

PARTIES. 

Party  "aggrieved"  in  statute.  Ilussey  v.  Whitely,  1  Bond, 
407;  2  Fisher,  120. 

To  bill,  who  are  proper.  Goodyear  v.  Hills,  3  Fisher,  134; 
Goodj-ear  v.  Hullihen,  2  Hughes,  492;  3  Fisher,  251 ;  Good- 
year V.  New  Jersey  Central  Railroad,  2  WaU.  Jr.,  356 ;  1 
Fisher,  626. 

Defendants.     Nichols  v.  Pearce,  7  Blatch.  5. 

Executors.  Goodyear  v.  Providence  Rubber  Co.,  2  Cliff.  351;  2 
Fisher,  499. 

Joinder  of  parties.     Buck  v.  Cobb,  9  Law  Rep.  545, 

Misjoinder.  Dorsey  Revolving  Harvester  Rake  Co.  v.  Bradley 
Manufacturing  Co.,  12  Blatch.  202. 


228  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Misjoinder  —  continued. 

Of  plaintiffs.      Goodyear  v.  Allyn,  6  Blatch.  33;  3  Fisher, 
374. 

Of  plaintiifs,  how  taken   advantage  of.      Hodge  v.   Iron 
Mountain  Raih'oad,  4  Fisher,  161. 

Too  late  after  decree.     Livingston  v.  Woodworth,  15  How. 
546. 

Of  defendants.     Stimpson  v.  Rogers,  4  Blatch.  333. 
Nonjoinder.     Forbes  v.  Barstow  Stove  Co.,  2  Cliff.  379;  Grover 

and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Sloat,  2  Fisher,  112; 

Henry   v.   Francistown   Soapstone   Stove  Co.,  9  Off.  Gaz. 

408;  Potter  v.  Wilson,  2  Fisher,  102. 
Want  of.     Aultman  y.  Holley,  11  Blatch.   317;  6  Fisher,  534; 

5  Off.  Gaz.  3;  Sanford  v.  Messer,  1  Holmes,  149;  5  Fisher, 

411;  2  Off.  Gaz.  470. 
As  witnesses.     Blanchard   v.    Sprague,    1   Cliff.  288;  Buck   v. 

Hermance,  1  Blatch.  322;  Foote  v.  Silsby,  3  Blatch.  507; 

Kendall  v.  Winsor,  6  R.  I.  453. 
(See  Allegation;  Assignment;  Cross-Bill;  Jurisdiction; 
Pleading.) 

PARTNERS. 

Authority  of.     Heilner  v.  Battin,  27  Penn.  St.  517. 
Partnership  suit  does  not  abate  by  death  of  one  partner.     Troy 

Iron  and  Nail  Factory  v.  Winslow,  11  Blatch.  513. 
Representatives  of  deceased  partner  cannot  be  sued  unless  firm 

is  insolvent.     Troy  Iron  and  Nail  Factory  v.  Winslow,  11 

Blatch.  513. 
Patent  refused  to  firm,  but  granted  to  partner,  belongs  to  firm. 

Vetter  v.  Leutzinger,  31  Iowa,  182. 

(See  Joint  Owners;  Patent.) 

PAST    INFRINGEMENT. 
(See  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

PATENT. 
To  administrators.      Northwestern    Fire   Extinguisher    Co.  v. 
Philadelphia  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.,  6  Off.  Gaz.  34. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  229 

Bad  for  ambiguity.     Bray  v.  Hartshorn,  1  Cliff.  538. 

Before   board  of  examiners   was   made.      Burr   v.  Duryee,  2 

Fisher,  275. 
Clauns,  too  large.     Cross  v.  Huntly,  13  Wend.  (N.   Y.)  385; 
Davis  V.  Bell,  8  N.  H.  500. 

Void  pi-o  tanto  under  act  of  1837.     Peterson  c.  Wooden,  3 
McLean,  248. 
For  combinations.      Holliday   v.    Rheem,    18   Penn.    St.   465; 
Latta  V.  Shawk,  1  Bond,  259;  1  Fisher,  465. 

Only  infringed  by  same  combination.     McCormick  v.  Tal- 
cott,  20  How.  402. 
Is  contract  of  government.     Ransom  v.  Mayor  of  New  York,  4 

Blatch.  l.-^7;  1  Fisher,  252. 
Copies,   refusal   by   Commissioner  to  furnish,  is  indefensible. 

Boyden  v.  Burke,  14  How.  575. 
What  th^y  can  cover.     Smith  v.  Downing,  1  Fisher,  64. 

Extent  of  one.     Bennet  v.  Fowler,  8  Wall.  445. 

Several  inventions  in  one  patent.      Emerson  v.   Hogg,  2 
Blatch.  1. 

One  pate)it  cannot  cover  two  distinct  machines.     Root  v. 
Ball,  4  McLean,  177;  2  Robb,  513. 
Is  creature  of  statute.     Moffitt  v.  Gaar,  1  Bond,  315;  1  Fisher, 

610;  Morton  v.  New  York  Eye  Infirmary,  5  Blatch.  116  ;  2 

Fisher,  320. 
Date  of.     Johnson  r.  Fassman,  1  Woods,  138;    5  Fisher,  471; 

2  Off.  Gaz.  94. 
Duration.      Congress  has  exclusive  power  to  limit.     Evans  v. 

Robinson,  1  Car.  L.  R.  (N.  C.)  209. 
Who  are  entitled  to.     Carr  v.  Rice,  1  Fisher,   198;  Dunbar  v. 

Myers,  4  Otto,  187;  11  Off.  Gaz.  35;  Odiorne  v.  Winkley, 

2  Gall.   51;    1  Robb,  52;  Reed  v.  Cutter,  1  Story,  590;  2 

Robb,  81;  Rice  v.  Heald,  13  Pac.  L.  R.  33;  Washburn  v. 

Gould,  3  Story,  122;  2  Robb,  206. 
Expiration  is  last  hour  of  day.     Johnson  i'.  McCulloch,  4  Fisher, 

170. 
Expired  patents.     Nevins  v.  Johnson,  3  Blatch.  80. 
What  they  are.  Hayden  v.  Suffolk  Manufacturing  Co.,  4  Fisher,  86. 
What  they  are  for.     Burr  i-.  Duryee,  1  Wall.  531 ;  CoUender  v. 

Came,  10  Off.  Gaz.  467;  Piper  v.  Brown,  1  Holmes,  20;  4 

Fisher,  175. 


230  PATENT     CASE    INDEX. 

Granting  must  be  according  to  law.      Smith  v.  Ely,  5  McLean, 

76. 
May  issue  to   executor  on   death  of    inventor.     Stimpson   v. 

Rogers,  4  Blatch.  333. 
For  improvements.     Chipman  v.  Wentworth,  1  Holmes,  96;  5 
Fisher,  302;  2  Off.  Gaz.  58;  Foss  v.  Herbert,  1  Bissell, 
121;  2  Fisher,  31;  McCormick  v.  Manny,  6  McLean, 
534;  Wintermute  v.  Redington,  1  Fisher,  239. 

Need  not  describe  machine  improved  on.  Ives  v.  Hamilton, 
2  Otto,  426;  10  Off.  Gaz.  336;  Many  v.  Jagger,  1 
Blatch.  372. 

Not  entitled  to   equivalents.      McCormick  v.   Talcott,  20 
How.  402. 
Patent  claiming  several  improvements  is  avoided  by  showing 

one  not  original.     Moody  v.  Fiske,  2  Mason,  112;  1  Robb, 

312. 
Two  inventions  in  one  patent.     Lee  v.  Blandy,  1  Bond,  361; 

2  Fisher,  89. 
Joint  patents.     Barrett  v.  Hall,  1  Mason,  447;  1  Robb,  207. 
Joint  and  sole  for  same  invention.     Crocker's  Case,   2  A.  L. 

T.  (U.  S.)  R.  129. 
Junior  and  senior  patents.     Asbestos   Felting  Co.  v.  United 

States  and  Foi-eign  Salamander  Felting  Co.,  13  Blatch.  453; 

Colt  V.  Massachusetts  Arms  Co.,  1  Fisher,  108. 
Law  of  patents.  Darst  v.  Brockway,  11  Ohio,  462. 
In  law  and  equity.     Buchanan  v.  Howland,  2  Blatch.  151;  2 

Fisher,  341. 
Misnomer  of  one  inventor  in  patent.     Northwest  Fire  Extin- 
guisher Co.  V.  Philadelphia  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.,  6  Off. 

Gaz.  34. 
Narrow  grounds  required  by  some  patents.     Rogers  v.  Ennis,  14 

Off.  Gaz.  601. 
For  impractical  inventions.     Seymour  v.  Marsh,  6  Fisher,  115; 

9  Phila.  380;  2  Off.  Gaz.  675. 
No  oyer  of  patents.     Smith  v.  Ely,  5  McLean,  76. 
For  parts.     Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Murphy,  7  Otto, 

120;  13  Off.  Gaz.  366. 
Of  partner  belongs  to  firm.     Remington  v.  Allen,  109  Mass. 

47. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  231 

Two  patents  for  same  invention  not  allowed   at   same  time. 

Odiorne  v.  Amesbury  Xail  Factory,  2  Mason,  28 ;  1  Robb, 

300. 
Prima  facie  evidence  of  what.      Cahoon  v.  Ring,  1  Cliff.  592 ;  1 
Fisher,  397. 

That  preliminaries  were  legally  done.     Gear  v.  Grosvenor, 
1  Holmes,  215;  6  Fisher,  314;  3  Off.  Gaz.  380. 
For  principle.     Hitchcock  v.  Tremaine,  8  Blatch.  440;  4  Fisher, 

508. 
Prior  patent  not  surrendered  or  repealed  avoids  present.     Morris 

V.  Huntington,  1  Paine,  348;  1  Robb,  448. 
Proceedings  ex  parte,  weight  of.     Wilson  v.  Bamum,  1  Wall.  Jr. 

347  ;  2  Robb, 749. 
For  process.     Goodyear  v.  New  Jersey  Central  Railroad,  2  WaU. 

Jr.  356;  1  Fisher,  626. 
For  process  and  product.      Jones   v.    Sewall,    3    Cliff.    563;  6 

Fisher,  343. 
Profert  of,    makes   part  of  declaration.      Pitts  v.  Whitman,  2 

Story,  609;  2  Robb,  189. 
Proper  subjects  of.     Pennsylvania  Salt  Co.  v.   Gugenheim,  3 

Fisher,  423. 
Protected  by  State  courts.    Hammer  v.  Barnes,  26  How.  (X.  Y.) 

176. 
Rejected  patents,  remedy.     Hull  v.   Commissioner  of  Patents, 

7  Off.  Gaz.  559. 
Rejected  patents  as  evidence.     Northwestern  Fire  Extinguisher 
Co.  V.  Philadelphia  Fire  Extinguisher  Co. ,  6  Off.  Gaz.  34. 

Laches.     United  States  Rifle,   &c.  Co.  v.  Whitney  Arms 
Co.,  14  Blatch.  94;  11  Off.  Gaz.  373. 
State  authority  to  use  patented  article.     Greaton  i;.  Grifiin,  4 

Abb.  N.  s.  (N.  Y.)  310. 
State  legislation  on.     Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v. 

Butler,  53  Ind.  452 ;  Helm  v.  First  National  Bank,  43  Ind. 

167. 
Rights  by  statute  only.    Higgins  v.  Strong,  4  Blackf.  (Ind.)  182. 
Cannot  be  subdivided.     Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  Whitney, 

31  Leg.  Int.  229. 
Superseding  a  patent.     Fuller  v.  Goodrich,  4  Otto,  299;  11  Off. 

Gaz.  597. 


232  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Surreptitiously  obtained.  Hoeltze  v.  Hoeller,  2  Bond,  386 ; 
Odiorne  v.  Winkley,  2  Gall.  51;  1  Robb,  52;  Wood  v.  Wil- 
liams, 1  Gilpin,  517;  1  Robb,  717. 

Term  of.     Golf  v.  Stafford,  14  Off.  Gaz.  748. 

Title  of,  not  conclusive.  Locomotive  Engine  Safety  Truck  Co. 
V.  Erie  Railroad,  10  Blatch.  292  ;  6  Fisher,  187 ;  3  Ofe.  Gaz. 
93 ;  Locomotive  Engine  Safety  Truck  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 
Railroad,  6  Off.  Gaz.  927. 

Value  of  patents.     Case  v.  Morey,  1  N.  H.  347. 

Void,  sold  by  fraud.     Ball  v.  Pratt,  1  Conn.  342. 

(See  Application;  Art;  Assignment;  Commissioner;  Con- 
struction OF  Patents;  Contract;  Costs;  Injunction; 
Invention;  Inventor;  Issue;  Joint  Owners;  Origi- 
nal Inventor  ;  Partners  ;  Reissues  ;  Suits  ;  Useful- 
ness; Validity.) 

PATENTABILITY. 

Of  "  art."     Roberts  v.  Dickey,  4  Fisher,  532;  1  Off.  Gaz.  4. 
Change  of  location.     Gilbert  and  Barker  Manufacturing  Co.  v. 
Tirrell,  12  Blatch.  144;  8  Off.  Gaz.  2. 
New  combination,  new  results.     Gilbert  and  Barker  Manu- 
facturing Co,  V.  Walworth  Manufacturing  Co.,  9  Off. 
Gaz.  746. 
Not  patentable,  what  more  is  needed.     Marsh  v.  Dodge  and 
Stevenson  Manufacturing  Co.,  6  Fisher,  562;    5  Off. 
•     Gaz.  398. 
Change  of  material  not  patentable.     Putnam  r.  Yerrington,  9 

Off.  Gaz.  689. 
Changes,  producing  new  results.     McComb  v.  Ernest,  1  Woods, 

195. 
Change,  mere  alteration.     Smith  v.  Pearce,  2  McLean,  176;  2 

Robb,  13. 
Of  combinations.  Booth  v.  Parks,  6  Chicago  Legal  News,  407  ; 
Smith  V.  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.,  3  Otto,  486 ; 
11  Off.  Gaz.  246;  Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthieson, 
3  Cliff.  639;  2  Fisher,  600;  W^atson  v.  Cunningham,  4 
Fisher,  528. 
Aggregations.  Sawin  v.  Hall,  9  Blatch.  524;  5  Fisher, 
415;  1  Off.  Gaz.  437. 


SYNOPSIS     OF    LAW    POINTS.  233 

Of  combinations  —  continued. 

Of  old  elements  with  new  results  is  patentable.  Child  v. 
Boston  and  Fair  Haven  Iron  Works,  1  Holmes,  303;  6 
Fisher,  60G;  5  Off.  Gaz.  61. 

Old  results  with  new  method.       Child  v.  Bo.ston  and  Fair 
Haven  Iron  Works,  1  Holmes,  303;  6  Fisher,  606;  5 
Off.  Gaz.  01. 
New  combination   of  old   elements.      Crosby   v.    Lapouraille, 

Taney,  Dec.  374. 
New  combination  w'ith  new  result.     Gilbert  and  Barker  ^lanu- 

facturing   Co.    v.    Walworth    Manufacturing    Co.,    9    Off. 

Gaz.  746;  Hailes  v.  Van  Wormer,  20  Wall.  353  ;  5  Off.  Gaz. 

89. 
Only  what  common-sense  would  suggest.     Carter  v.  Messinger, 

11  Blafcch.  34. 
Effect  or  function  not  patentable.     Must  state  means.     Hoe  v. 

Simpson,   6  Off.  Gaz.  435;  Parham  v.   American  Button- 
hole, &c.  Co.,  4  Fisher,  468;  Swain  Turbine  Co.  v.  Ladd, 

11  Off.  Gaz.  153. 
Generally.     Leroy  v.  Tatham,  14  How.  156 ;  Providence  Rub- 
ber Co.  V.  Goodyear,  9  Wall.  788 ;    Sanford  v.  Merrimack 

Hat  Co.,  10  Off."  Gaz.  466. 
Idea  not  patentable.    Rubber  Tip  Pencil  Co.  v.  Howard,  20  Wall. 
498;  7  Off.   Gaz.    172;  Sickels  v.   Borden,  3  Blatch. 
535. 

Must  be  practical  application.    Detmold  v.  Reeves,  1  Fisher, 
127. 
Of  improvements.     McCormick  v.  Seymour,  3  Blatch.  209. 
Improvement  in  plan  of  building  jails  not  patentable.     Jacobs 

V.  Baker,  7  Wall.  295. 
Incompleteness.     Reed  v.  Cutter,  1  Story,  590;  2  Robb,  81. 
Inventive  skill  required.     Poppenhusen  v.  Falke,  5  Blatch.  46 ; 

2  Fisher,  213. 
Old  thing  to   new   use.     Bean    v.    Smallwood,    2  Robb,   133; 

Meyer  v.   Pritchard,   12  Blatch.  101;    7  Off.  Gaz.   1012; 

Roberts  v.  Ryer,  1  Otto,  150 ;  10  Off.  Gaz.  204. 
Old  process  to  new  purpose.    Brown  v.  Piper,  1  Otto,  37 ;  10  Off. 

Gaz.  417. 
Patent /jn'ma /aci'e  evidence  of.    Adams  i;.  Edwards,  1  Fisher,  1. 


234  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Principle. 

Embodied  in  condition  to  act  is  patentable.     Andrews  v. 

Carman,  13  Blatch.  307. 
Not  patentable.     Piper  v.  Brown,  1  Holmes,  20 ;  4  Fisher, 
175:  Smith  v.  Ely,  5  McLean,  76;  Tilghman  v.  Werk, 
2  Fisher,  229 ;    Wintermute  o.   Redingtou,  1  Fisher, 
239. 
Product  not  patentable.     AVooster  v.  Calhoun,  11  Blatch.  215 ; 

6  Fisher,  514. 
Purpose  not  patentable.     Carver  v.  Hyde,  16  Peters,  513. 
Is  mixed  question  of  law   and  fact.     Teese  v.  Phelps,  1  Mc- 
Allister, 17. 
Result. 

Not  patentable.  Fuller  v.  Yentzer,  4  Otto,  299;  11  Off. 
Gaz.  597;  Plowe  v.  Abbott,  2  Story,  190;  2  Robb, 
99;  Leroy  v.  Tatham,  14  How.  156;  Marsh  v.  Dodge 
and  Stevenson  Manufacturing  Co. ,  6  Fisher,  562 ;  5 
Off.  Gaz.  398;  Reed  v.  Reed,  12  Blatch.  366;  8  Off. 
Gaz.  193;  Shaw  and  Wilcox  Co.  v.  Lovejoy,  7  Blatch. 
232;  Wheeler  v.  Simpsou,  6  Off.  Gaz.  435. 
Not  patentable,   but  important    in    improvements  of  old 

devices.     Hall  v.  Wiles,  2  Blatch.  194. 
Difference  in,  patentable  as  showing  difference  in  process. 
Leroy  v.   Tatham,    22    How.   132;  Sloat  v.   Patton,  1 
Fisher,  154. 
Old  result  by  new  process.     Wood  Paper  Patent,  23  Wall. 
566. 
State  of  the  art.     Hill  v.  Houghton,  6  Off.  Gaz.  3. 
Suggestion  not  patentable.     Graham  v.  Gammon,  7  Bissell,  49. 
Shown  by  utility.     Pennsylvania  Salt  Co.  v.  Thomas,  5  Fisher, 

148. 

(See  Combination  ;  Patent.) 

PATENT    LAW. 

(See  Statute.) 

PATENT    OFFICE. 
Action  is  conclusive.     Cowan  v.  Mitchell,  11  Heisk.    (Tenn.) 

87. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  235 

Proceedings  prima  facie  valid.      Wiiiaus   v.    Schenectady   and 
Troy  Railroad,  2  Blatch.  279. 

(See  Ixterfekenck;  Title.) 

PAYMENT. 

(See  Contract;  Defense;  Note.) 

PENALTY. 
Patented  articles  not  marked.     Goodyear  v.  AUyn,  6  Blatch.  33; 
3  Fisher,  374;  McComb  v.  Brodie,  1  Woods,  153;  5  Fisher, 
384;  2  Off.  Gaz.  117. 
Unpatented  articles  marked  "patented."     Nichols  v.  Newell,  1 
Fisher,  647;  United  States  v.  Morris,  2  Bond,  23;  3 
Fisher,  72. 
Intent  to  deceive.     "Walker  v.  Ilawxhurst,  5  Blatch.  494. 
Limitations  of  bringing  suits.     Stimpson  v.  Pond,  2  Curtis, 
502. 

(See  Discovery.) 

PENDENCY    OF   SUIT. 
(See  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

PERFORMANCE. 
(See  Contract;  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

PIRATED  INVENTIONS. 
(See  Invention.) 

PLEADING. 

Abatement,  demurrer.     Walter  A.  "Wood,  &c.  Co.  v.  CaldweU, 

54  Ind.  270. 
Admissibility  of  decree  of   United  States  courts.      Hawks  v. 

Swett,  4  Hun  (N.  Y^),  146. 
Allegation  of  fraud.     Lindsay  v.  Roraback,  4  Jones,  Eq.  (N.  C.) 

124;  Loudon  v.  Birt,  4  Ind.  566. 
In  bar.     Smith  v.  Ely,  5  McLean,  76. 

By  special  notice  under  general  issue.     Evans  v.  Kremer, 
Peters,  C.  C.  215;  1  Robb,  66. 


236  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

No  certificate  of  counsel  with  plea.     Goodyear  v.  Toby,  6  Blatch. 

130. 
Clearness  required  in  equity.     Graham  v.  Mason,  5  Fisher,  1. 
Consideration  of  note,  statute.     Domestic  Sewing  Machine  Co. 

V.  Hatfield,  58  Ind.  187. 
Duplicity,  only  one  defense  allowed  in  one  plea.     Reissner  v. 

Anness,  12  Off.  Gaz.  842. 
Formal  objections.    Goodyear  v.  Beverly  Rubber  Co.,  1  Cliff.  348. 
Hypothetical  jjleas  are  bad.     INIorse  i'.  Davis,  5  Blatch.  40. 
Irregularity,  filing  two  pleas  without  special  leave.     Wheeler  v. 

McCormick,  8  Blatch.  267;  4  Fisher,  433. 
Judgment  to  be  plea  in  bar  must  be  direct  on  validity.     Tyler  v. 

Hyde,  2  Blatch.  308. 
Misjoinder  of  plaintiffs.     Woodworth  v.  Cook,  2  Blatch.  151. 
Multifariousness.     Case  i'.  Redfield,  4   McLean,  526;    2  Robb, 
741;  Gillespie  y.  Cummings,  3  Sawyer,  259;  Seymour 
V.  Osborne,  11  WaU.  516. 
Several  patents,  all  infringed  by  same  machine.     Nellis  v. 
McLanahan,  6  Fisher,  286;  Nourse  v.  Allen,  4  Blatch. 
376;  3  Fisher,  63. 
Nonjoinder  of  parties.     Wheeler  v.  McCormick,  11  Blatch.  334; 

6  Fisher,  551 ;  4  Off.  Gaz.  692. 
Not  guilty,  what  plaintiff  must  prove.     Dixon  v.  Moyer,  4  Wash. 

68;  i  Robb,  324. 
Notice  of  special  matter  under  general  issue.     Rees  v.  Gould, 
6  Fisher,  106;  2  Off.  Gaz.  624. 
Thirty  days.      Teese  v.   Huntingdon,   23   How.  2;  Union 
Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthieson,  3  Cliff.  639;  2  Fisher, 
600;  Wilder  v.  Gaylor,  1  Blatch.  597. 
Deficiency  cannot  be  supplied  by  special  plea.     McCay  v. 

Burr,  6  Penn.  St.  147. 
Sufficiency.     Silsby  v.  Foote,  14  How.  218. 
Order,  replication  followed  by  testimony.     Reissner  i/.  Anness, 

13  Off.  Gaz.  7. 
Parties.     Goodyear  v.  Toby,  6  Blatch.  130. 
Pendency  of  other  suit.     Wheeler  v.  McCormick,  8  Blatch.  267; 

4  Fisher,  433. 
Prior  use  without  abandonment  is  demurrable.     Root  v.  Ball,  4 
McLean,  177 ;  2  Robb,  513. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  237 

Redundancy,  reference  to  prior  suit.     Knox  v.  Great  "Western 

Quicksilver  Mining  Co.,  3  Sawyer,  422;  14  OfE.  Gaz.  897. 
Special  pleas  under  general  issue.     ]\Iorse  i;.  Davis,  5  Blatch. 
40;    Read   v.    Miller,    2   Bissell,    12;    3   Fisher,    310; 
Wilder  v.  Gaylor,  1  Blatch.  597. 
Right  to.     Phillips  v.  Combstock,  4  McLean,  353;  2  Robb, 

724. 
License  without  attacking  validity.     Day  v.  New  England 
Car  Spring  Co.,  3  Blatch.  179. 
Sufficiency,  note.     Kernodle  v.  Hunt,  4  Blackf.  (Ind.)  .57. 
(See  Demuruek;  Juuisdiction  ;  Limitations;  Parties; 
Publication;  Public  Use;  Want  of  Novelty.) 

POPULARITY. 
(See  Usefulness.) 

POSSESSION. 
(See  Injunction  ;  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

POVERTY. 
(See  Abandonment;  Assignment;  Injunction.) 

PRACTICE. 
Sudden  changes  not  desirable.     Union   Sugar  Refinery  v.  Mat- 

thieson,  3  Cliff.  14G. 
Lregular  oath  of  plaintiff.      Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall.  429; 

1  Robb,  28. 
Irregular  to  file  papers  without  leave  of  court.     Union  Sugar 
Refinery  v.  Matthieson,  3  Cliff.  146. 

(See  Affidavits  ;  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

PRELIMINARIES. 
(See  Patent.) 

PRELIMINARY    INJUNCTIONS. 
Abandonment  and  public  use  reserved  for  final  hearing.      Tap- 
pan  V.  National  Bank  Note  Co.,  4  Blatch.  509;  2  Fisher, 
195. 


238  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Acquiescence.  American  Shoe  Tip  Co.  v.  National  Shoe  Toe 
Protector  Co.,  11  Off.  Gaz.  740;  Battin  v.  Silliman,  3 
Wall.  Jr.  124;  Goodyear  v.  New  Jersey  Central  Rail- 
road, 2  Wall.  Jr.  356;  1  Fisher,  626;  Grover  and 
Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Williams,  2  Fisher,  133. 
Mere  lapse  of  time.     Guidet  v.  Palmer,  10  Blatch.  217;  6 

Fisher,  82 ;  Potter  v.  Fuller,  2  Fisher,  251. 
Under  caveat.     Sargent  v.  Seagrave,  2  Curtis,  553. 
Ex  parte  affidavits.     Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v. 

Williams,  2  P'isher,  132. 
Verbal  admission  of  infringement.     Morse  Fountain  Pen  Co. 
V.  Estei'brook  Steel  Pen  Manufacturing  Co.,  3  Fisher,  515. 
Assignment  after  granting,  no  ground  for  dissolving.     Thomp- 
son, &c.  V.  Barry,  2  Weekly  Notes,  100. 
Circumstances  of  parties,  i-esponsibility  of  defendant.     Morris 

V.  Lowell  Manufacturing  Co.,  3  Fisher,  67. 
Compel  performance  of  agreements.      Smith  v.   Cummings,  1 

Fisher,  152. 
Concealment  by  defendant.     Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v. 

Binney,  5  Fisher,  166. 
Substantial   controversy,    effect   of.       Smith   v.    Cummings,    1 

Fisher,  152. 
Court,  what  bound  to  do.     Parker  v.  Sears,  1  Fisher,  93. 

How  far  into  evidence  it  will  go.  Sickels  v.  Youngs,  3 
Blatch.  293. 
Decisions,  prior.  American  Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v.  Chris- 
tian, 4  Dillon,  448;  Battin  v.  Silliman,  3  Wall.  Jr. 
124;  Jones  v.  Merrill,  8  Off.  Gaz.  401;  Potter  v.  Fuller, 
2  Fisher,  251. 
Charge  of  collusion.     American  Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v. 

Atlantic  Middlings  Co.,  4  Dillon,  100. 
Entitle  plaintiff  to  preliminary  injunctions  in  absence   of 
testimony.      Birdsell  v.  Hagerstown  Agricultural  Im- 
plement Manufacturing  Co.,  6  Off.  Gaz.  604. 
Being  numerous,  only  question    is    infringement.      Blan- 
chard  v.  Reeves,  1  Fisher,    103;  Robertson  v.  Hill,  6 
Fisher,  465;  4  Off.  Gaz.  132. 
If  none,  infringement  must  be  clear.     Burleigh  Rock  DriU 
Co.  V.  Lobdell,  1  Holmes,  450;  7  Off.  Gaz.  836;  North 
V.  Kershaw,  4  Blatch.  70. 


SYNOPSIS    OP    LAW    POINTS.  239 

Decisions,  prior  —  continued. 

Entitle   to   preliminary   injunction   without  further  trial. 

Chim  V.  Brewer,  2  Curtis,  50G. 
Against  practically  same  machine.      Conover  v.   Mers,    3 

Fisher,  :38G. 
Laches,     (ioodyear  r.  Housinger,  2  Bissell,  1;  3  Fisher,  187. 
And  long  use.     Goodyear  v.  MuUee,  3  Fisher,  420. 
if  none,  exclusive  possession  must  be  shown.     Hockholzer 

V.  Eager,  2  Sawyer,  361. 
None,  single  machine,  refused,  security  for  costs.     Morris  v. 

Shelbui-ne,  8  Bhitch.  266;  4  Fisher,  377. 
If  verdict  at  law  and  infringement,  injunction  must  issue. 

Poppenhusen  v.  Falke,  4  Blatch.  493;  2  Fisher,  ISI. 
Ruling  is   not  enough.       Sargent   Manufacturing   Co.    v. 

Woodruff,  5  Bissell,  444. 
Two  failures  at  law  to  establish  validity.     Serrill  v.  Collins, 

4  Blatch.  61. 
Prior  suit  at  law  not  necessary.     Shelly  v.  Brannan,  2  Bis- 
sell, 315;  4  Fisher,  198;  Sickels  v.  Mitchell,  3  Blatch. 

548;  Weston  v.  White,  13  Blatch.  447. 
Against  same  machine,  weight  of.     Sickels  v.  Tileston,  4 

Blatch.  109. 
Writ  of  error  pending.     Wells  i^.  Gill,  2  Off.  Gaz.  590. 
Discretion  of  the  court.     Forbush  o.  Bradford,  1  Fisher,  317; 

Irwin  I).  Dane,  2  Bissell,  442;  4  Fisher,  359. 
Is  appeal  to  discretion.     Wells  v.  Gill,  2  Off.  Gaz.  590. 
Of  United  States  courts.     Yuengling  v.  Johnson,  1  Hughes, 

607. 
Doubt  of  infringement.     Dodge  v.  Card,  1  Bond,  393;  2  Fisher, 

116;  Goodyear  v.  New  Jersey  Central  Railroad,  2  Wall. 

Jr.  356 ;  1  Fisher,  626. 
Reasonable.     Winans  v.  Eaton,  1  Fisher,  181. 
Doubt  of  validity.     Fales  v.  Wentworth,  1  Holmes,  96;  5  Fisher, 

302;  2  Off.  Gaz.  58. 
Granted  or  not. 

Not  on  theory  unsupported  by  affidavits.     American   Dia- 
mond Rock  Boring  Co.  v.  Sullivan  Co,,  14  Blatch.  119. 
Not,  short  time  since  reissue.     Brown  v.  Hinkley,  6  Fisher, 

370;  3  Off.  Gaz.  384. 


240  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Granted  or  not  —  continued. 

Denied   because   suit   had  been  pending  several   months. 

Andrews  v.  Spear,  4  Dillon,  472. 
Granted  without  evasion  if  proper.     Blanchard  v.  Reeves,  1 

Fisher,  103. 
Long  en joynieut  and  clear  infringement.     Chase  v.  Wesson, 

1  Holmes,  274;  6  Fisher,  517;  4  Off.  Gaz.  476. 
Denial  of  title  no  ground  for  refusing.     Clum  v.  Brewer,  2 

Curtis,  506. 
Verdict   at  law,   motion  for  new  trial  pending.      Day  v. 

Hartshorn,  3  Fisher,  32. 
When  refused.     Dorsey  Revolving  Harvester  Rake  Co.  v. 

Bradley  Manufacturing  Co.,  12  Blatch.  202. 
Short  time  to  run,  giving  bonds  for  costs.     Howe  v.  Morton, 

1  Fisher,  586. 
Damage  to  plaintiff  if  refused.     Irwin  v.  Dane,  2  Bissell, 

442;  4  Fisher,  359. 
Not,  where  strong  doubt  of  novelty.     Jones  v.  Hodges,  1 

Holmes,  37. 
Short  time  since  issue  and  slight  proof  of  infringement. 

Muscan  Hair   IManufacturing  Co.   v.    American   Hair 

Maimfacturing  Co.,  4  Blatch.  174;  1  Fisher,  320. 
Pendency  of  other  suit,  granted.     Pennsylvania  Salt  Co.  v. 

Myers,  1  Weekly  News,  377. 
Plaintiff   with   patent,    defendant   without.      Pentlarge  v. 

Beeston,  14  Blatch.  352. 
Past  infringements  which  cannot  be  renewed,  no  ground 

for.     Potter  v.  Crowell,  1  Abbott,  89;  3  Fisher,  112. 
No  laches  of  plaintiff,  no  injury  to  particular  defendant, 

granted.     Rumford  Chemical  Works  v.  Vice,  14  Blatch. 

179;  11  Off.  Gaz.  600. 
Discontinuance  of    infringement  no   answer.      Sickels   v. 

Mitchell,  3  Blatch.  548. 
General  denial  of  validity  no  answer.     Sickels  v.  Mitchell, 

3  Blatcli.  548. 
Refused.     Defendant  making  for  English  government  offers 

to  pay.     Smith  v.  Rifle  Co.,  3  Blatch.  545. 
Intimidation.     Wilson  Packing  Co.  v.  Clapp,  13  Off.  Gaz. 

368. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  241 

Injuiy. 

Inconvenience  to  parties.     Ilockholzer  v.  Eager,  2  Sawyer, 

361. 
To  defendant.     Howe  r.  Newton,  2  Fisher,  531;  Potter  v. 

Fuller,  2  Fisher,  251. 
Irreparable  mischief.     Morris  r.  Lowell  Manufactui-ing  Co. , 

3  Fisher,  67;  Sickels  v.  Youngs,  3  Blatch.  293. 
Hardship  on  defendant.     Parker  v.  Sears,  1  Fisher,  93. 

License  as  a  defense.     Blake  v.  Greenwood  Cemetery,  14  Blatch. 
3i2;  13   Off.  Gaz.   1046;    Day  v.  New   England  Car 
Spring  Co.,  3  Blatch.  154. 
Violation  of  license  by  misapprehension.     Wilson  v.  Sher- 
man, 1  Blatch.  536. 
Negligence.     Hockholzer  v.  Eager,  2  Sawyer,  361. 

By  plaintiff  in   not   preventing   infringement.      Jones   v. 
Merrill,  8  Off.  Gaz.  401. 
Notice  of  motion  for.     No  longer  required.     Yuengling  v.  John- 
son, 1  Hughes,  607. 
Object  of. 

To   keep  things   as   they  are  till  rights  are   in ve.sti gated. 
American  Xicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  City  of  Elizabeth, 

4  Fisher,    189;  Day   v.    Boston  Belting  Co.,  16  Law 
Rep.  329. 

Prevent  future  violations.       Poppenhusen   v.   New  York 
Gutta-percha  Comb  Co.,  4  Blatch.  184;  2  Fisher,  74. 
Patent  held  by  defendant  is  presumptive  against  infringement. 

Sargent  ^Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Woodruff,  5  Bissell,  444. 
Possession. 

Undisturbed.     Miller  v.  Androscoggin  Pulp  Co.,  1  Holmes, 

142;  5  Fisher,  340;  1  Off.  Gaz.  409. 
No  fixed  length.     Potter  v.  Miller,  2  Fisher,  465. 
With  consumer's  acquiescence.     Sargent  v.  Carter,  1  Fisher,  277. 
Length  required.     Sargent  v.  Seagrave,  2  Curtis,  553;  Mus- 
can  Hair  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  American  Hair  Manu- 
facturing Co.,  4  Blatch.  174;  1  Fisher,  320. 
Exclusive.     Thomas  v.  Weeks,  2  Paine,  92. 
Practice.     Goodyear  v.  Hills,  3  Fisher,  134. 
Prima  facie  right  to,  by  eight  years'  exclusive  use.     Foster  v. 
Moore,  1  Curtis,  279. 

16 


2i2  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Prior  patent  expired.     Whitney  v.  RoUstone  Machine  Works, 

8  Off.  Gaz.  908. 
Questions. 

Of  fact  not  easily  settled  on  such  motions.   Wells  v.  Jacques, 
5  Fisher,  136. 

Originality  and  validity  not  gone  into.     Gibson  v.  Betts,  1 
Blatch.  163. 

Same  in  other  courts.     Atlantic  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  Good- 
year, 13  Off.  Gaz.  45. 
Quiet  enjoyment.     Potter  v.  Holland,  4  Blatch.  238;  1  Fisher, 

382. 
Reasons  for.     Goodyear  t\  Hullihen,  2  Hughes,  492;  3  Fisher, 

251. 
Sales  by  agent.     Potter  v.  Crowell,  1  Abbott,  89 ;  3  Fisher,  112. 
Title,  peculiar  circumstances.      Potter  v.   Whitney,  1   Lowell, 

87;  3  Fisher,  77. 
Unsatisfactory  evidence.       Sykes  v.   Manhattan  Elevator   and 

Grain  Drying  Co.,  6  Blatch.  496. 
Untested  patents.     Gear  v.  Holmes,  6  Fisher,  595. 
Verdicts  at  law.     Many  v.  Sizer,  1  Fisher,  31 ;  Parker  i\  Brant, 

1  Fisher,    58 ;    Poppenhusen   v.    New   York    Gutta-percha 

Comb  Co.,  4  Blatch.  184;  2  Fisher,  74. 
Validity  established,  feigned  issues  asked.     Van   Hook  v.  Pen- 
dleton, 1  Blatch.  187. 

(See  Suits.) 

PRESUMPTION. 

(See  Arbitrators  ;  Commissioner  ;  Construction  of  Pat- 
ents; Invention;  Original  Inventor;  Public  Use; 
Witnesses.) 

PRICE. 
(See  Damages.) 

PRINCIPLE. 

(See  Definition;  Infringement;  In.junction;  Patent; 
Patentability  ;  Public  Use;  Reissue.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  243 

PRINTING. 

(See  Costs.) 

PRIOR    JUDGMENT. 

Averment  of  in  bill,  when  necessary.      Blandy  v.   Griffeth,  3 

Fisher,  G09. 
No  Circuit  Coirt  is  bound  to  follow  decisions  in  otlier  circuits. 

Blake  v.  Robertson,  G  Off.  Gaz.  297. 
Decision  of  Supreme   Court  is  final  as  to  validity  of  patent. 

Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Davis,  12  Off.  Gaz.  Oct. 

2,  i. 

PRIOR    KNOWLEDGE. 

Amount  of  proof  required.     Cohn  v.  United  States  Corset  Co., 

12  Blatch.  225;  6  Off.  Gaz.  2.59;   Ilawes  v.  AntLsdel,  8  Off. 

Gaz.  G85. 
Degree  required.     Elastic  Fabrics  Co.  v.  East  Hampton  Rubber 

Thread  Co.,  9  Off.  Gaz.  745. 
Particularity  of  notice  required.      Smith   v.  Frayer,  5   Fisher, 

543;  2  Off.  Gaz.  175;  Wilton  v.  The  Railroads,  1  Wall.  Jr. 

192;  2  Robb,  G41;  Wise  v.  Allis,  9  Wall.  737. 
Machine  must  be  the  same  and  not  need  modification.     Cahoon 

V.  Ring,  1  Cliff.  592;  1  Fisher,  397. 
Question   of    fact,    burden   of    proof  on   defendant.      Fisk   v. 

Church,  5  Fisher,  5i0;  1  Off.  Gaz.  634. 
Time  of.     Phillips  v.  Page,  24  How.  164. 
And  use.     AVhitney  v.  Emmett,  1  Bald.  303;  1  Robb,  567. 

PRIOR    USE. 

Abroad  must  be  by  printed  publications.     Jones  v.  Sewall,  3 

Cliff.  5G3;  6  Fisher,  343. 
Application,  continuous  in  spite  of  adverse  public  use.     Colgate 

V.  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.,  14  Off".  Gaz.  943!' 
Attempts  by  employes  to  prove  they  were  inventors.     Child  v. 

Boston    and  Fair  Haven  Iron  Works,   1   Holmes,  303;    6 

Fisher,  60G;  5  Off.  Gaz.  61. 
Burden  of  proof.     Roemer  v.  Simon,  5  Off.  Gaz.  555. 


244  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Must  be  here,  not  in  England.     Dixon  v.  Moyer,  4  Wash.  68;  1 
Eobb,  324. 
Proof.     Judson  v.  Cope,  1  Bond,  327 ;  1  Fisher,  615. 
Extent.     Reed  v.  Cutter,  1  Story,  590  ;  2  Robb,  81. 
Foreign  prior  use.     Roemer  v.  Simon,  5  OE.  Gaz.  555. 
Without  knowledge  of  patentee,  avoids  his  patent.     Roemer  v. 

Simon,  5  Off.  Gaz.  555. 
Must  be  more  than  two  years.     Sisson  v.  Gilbert,  9  Blatch.  185 ; 

5  Fisher,  109. 
Notice  of  time  and  place.      Judson  v.  Moore,  1  Bond,  285;  1 
Fisher,  544. 
Thirty  days.     Pickering  v.  Phillips,  10  Off.  Gaz.  420. 
Is  peremptorily  required.     La  Baw  v.  Hawkins,  6  Oft'.  Gaz. 

724. 
That  parties  are  unknown,  amended  nunc  pro  tunc.     Roe- 
mer V.  Simon,  5  Otto,  214;  12  Off.  Gaz.  796. 
Prior  invention  is  not  prior  use.     Colt  v.  Massachusetts  Arms 
Co.,  1  Fisher,  108. 

(See  Sale;  Want  of  Novelty.) 

PRIVATE    USE. 
(See  Inventions  ;  Publications.) 

PRIVITY. 

(See  Defendants.) 

PROCEEDINGS. 

(See  Commissioner  ;  Court  ;  Patent.) 

PROCESS. 

(See  Infringement ;  Patent;  Reissue;  Repeal;  Want  of 
*'  Novelty.) 

PRODUCT. 

(See  Infringement;  Patent;  Reissue;  Want  of 
Novelty.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  245 

PROFERT. 
(See  Patent.) 

PROFITS. 
(See  Account;  Bill;  Damages;  Definition.) 

PUBLICATIONS    (PRINTED). 

Must  be   so   clear  as  to  leave  uo  reasonable  doubt.     Cohn  v. 

United  States  Corset  Co.,  12  Blatch.  22.5;  6  Off.  Gaz.  259. 
Must  be  clear  of  the  thing,  not  the  steps  to  it.     Cohn  v.  United 

States  Corset  Co.,  3  Otto,  366 ;  11  Off.  Gaz.  457. 
Unless  clear  enough  to  anticipate  is  only  evidence  of  state  of 

art.     Geier  v.  Goetinger,  7  Off.  Gaz.  563. 
Must  not  be  vague  references  but  clear  enough  to  construct. 

Hays  V.  Sulsoi',  1  Bond,  279;  1  Fisher,  532. 
Defense  under  general  issue.     Bates  v.  Coe,  8  Otto,  31 ;  15  Off. 

Gaz.  337. 
Knowledge  derived  must  enable  those  skilled  in  that  branch  to 

practise  it.     Goff  v.  Stafford,  14  Off.  Gaz.  748. 
How  pleaded  and   proved.     Kelleher  v.    Darling,  14   Off.  Gaz. 

673. 
For  private  use.     Reeves  v.  Keystone  Bridge  Co.,  5  Fisher,  456; 

9  Phila.  368 ;  1  Off.  Gaz.  466. 
Must  be  prior  to   inccrUion  not  patent.     City  of   Elizabeth  v. 

Pavement  Co.,  7  Otto,  126. 
Omission  of   important  element.       Woodward  v.  Dinsmore,  4 

Fisher,  163. 
Put  on  same  footing  as  patent  of  its  date.     Webb  v.  Quintard, 

9  Blatch.  352;  5  Fisher,  276;  1  Off.  Gaz.  525. 
Substantial  representation  enough   to  construct.      Seymour    v. 

Osborne,  11  Wall.  516. 
Sufficient  to  give   practical  knowledge.      Roberts  v.  Dickey,  4 

Fisher,  532  ;  1  Off.  Gaz.  4. 
Pure  theoiy  not  enough.     National  Filter  Oil  Co.  v.  Arctic  Oil 

Co.,  4  Fisher,  514. 

(See  New  Thial;  PnioR  Use.) 


246  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 


PUBLIC    OFFICER. 
Acts  of,  record  showing  disregard  of  rules.     Wliitely  v.  Swayne, 
4  Fisher,  117. 

(See  Commissioner.) 

PUBLIC  USE  FOR  TWO  YEARS. 

Must  be  before  date  of  application.     Bell  v.  Daniels,  1  Bond, 
212 ;  1  Fisher,  372 ;  Singer  v.   Braunsdorf ,  7  Blatch. 
521. 
First  application.     Blandy  v.  Griffeth,  3  Fisher,  609. 
Consent  of  inventor.      Egbert  v.   Lippman,  14  Off.  Gaz.  822; 

Melius  V.  Silsbee,  4  Mason,  108;  1  Robb,  506. 
Burden  of  proof  is  on  defendant.     Crouch  v.  Roemer,  11  Off. 

Gaz.  1112. 
Doubt  goes  against  defendants.      Comstock  v.   Sandusky    Seat 

Co.,  13  Off.  Gaz.  230. 
Not  open  under  general  issue.     Kelleher  v.  Darling,  14  Off.  Gaz. 

673. 
What  is. 

Use  by  one  man  for  himself  unknown  to  public  is   not. 

Adams  v.  Edwards,  1  Fisher,  1. 
Two   years   before   patent   but    after    application   is   not. 

Adams  v.  Jones,  1  Fisher,  521. 
What  public  and  common    use  means.      American   Hide 
and  Leather  Splitting,  &c.  Co.  v.  American  Tool  Co., 
1  Holmes,  503;  4  Fisher,  284. 
Honest  public   experimenting  to   test  is   not.     American 
Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  City  of  Elizabeth,  4  Fisher, 
189 ;  3  Off.  Gaz.  522. 
Rejected  application,  delay  of  ten  years  using  it.     Bevin  v. 

East  Hampton  Bell  Co.,  9  Blatch.  50. 
Use  in   good  faith   to   test   is  not.     City  of   Elizabeth  v. 

Pavement  Co.,  7  Otto,  126. 
Things  made  on  same  principle.     Cleveland  v.   Towle,  3 

Fisher,  525. 
Actual  extensive  use.  Consolidated'  Fi-uit  Jar  Co.  v.  Wright, 

12  Blatch.  149  ;  6  Off.  Gaz.  327. 
By  patentee  himself.     Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  Wright, 
4  Otto,  92. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  247 

What  is  —  continued. 

Waiting  during  experiments.     Henry  v.  Francistown  Soap- 
stone  Stove  Co.,  9  Off.  Gaz.  408. 
Two  years'  sale.     Jones  v.  Sewall,  3  Cliff.  503;  6  Fisher, 
843. 
Presumption  is  in  favor  of  patent.     Brown  v.  Whittemore,  5 

Fisher,  524 ;  2  Off.  Gaz.  248. 
Two  years  must  be  alleged,  public  use  is  not  enough.      Agawam 
Co.  V.  Jordan,  7  Wall.  583. 

(See  Abandonment;  Definition.) 

PURCHASERS. 

Bonajide.     Pierson  v.  Eagle  Screw  Co.,  3   Story,  402;  2  Robb, 
268;  Pitts  v.  Whitman,  2  Story,  609;  2  Robb,  189;  United 
States  Annunciator  Co.  v.  Sanderson,  3  Blatch.  184;  Wood- 
worth  V.  Cook,  2  Blatch.  151. 
(See  Assignment;  Defense;  Estoppel;  Infringement; 
Inventor;  Sale;  Suits.) 

PURPOSE. 
(See  Infringement;  Patentability.) 

QUANTUM    VALEBAXT. 

For  use  of  patented  machines.     Batten  v.  Kear,  2  Phila.  (Penn.) 
301. 

(See  Jurisdiction.) 

QUESTIONS. 

(See  Jury;  Preliminary  In.junctions;  Reissue;  Uncer- 
tainty; Witness.) 

QUIA    TIMET. 
(See  Bill.) 

REASSIGNMENT. 
(See  Bill  ;  Contract;  Note.) 


248  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

RECEIVER. 

(See  Corporation;  Suits.) 

RECORD. 

(See  Assignment;  Disclaimer;  License;  Public  Officer; 
Title.) 

RECOUPMENT. 
(See  Damages.) 

REDUNDANCY. 

(See  Pleading.) 

REFERENCE. 
(See  Master.) 

REHEARING. 

Because  agreement  to  waive  want  of  notice  was  not  accepted  by 

court.     American  Saddle  Co.   v.  Hogg,   1   Holmes,  177;  6 

Fisher,  67;  2  Off.  Gaz.  595. 
To  introduce  testimony  on  statute  of  1868  not  known  till  after 

decree.     American  Wood  Paper  Co.   i\   Glen  Falls  Paper 

Co.,  8  Blatch.  513;  4  Fisher,  324. 
For  mistake,  putting  in  wrong  patent.     Baldwin  v.  Schultz,  9 

Blatch.  494;  5  Fisher,  75;  2  Off.  Gaz.  317. 
Newly  discovered  evidence.     Hitchcock  v.  Tremaine,  9  Blatch. 

550;  5  Fisher,   537;  1  Off.  Gaz.   633;  Reeves  v.  Keystone 

Bridge  Co.,  9  Off.  Gaz.  885. 
Want  of  proper  expert  testimony.      Hitchcock  v.  Tremaine,  9 

Blatch.  550;  5  Fisher,  537;  1  Off'.  Gaz.  633. 

REISSUES. 

To  assignee  of  executor.     Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fabric  Co., 
1  Holmes,  45. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  249 

To  sectional  assignees.     Commissioner  of  Patents  v.  Whitely, 

4  Wall.  522. 

To  assignee  of  assignee.      Swift   v.    Whisen,  2  Bond,  115;  3 

Fisher,  343. 
Assignee's  oath  in  lifetime  of  patentee.     Whitely  v.  Swayne,  4 

Fisher,  117. 
Assignee's   consent.      Woodworth  v.    Stone,   3    Story,  749;    2 

Robb,  296. 
To  administrators.     Smith  v.  Mercer,  5  Penn.  L.  J.  529. 
Antedating.     Whitely  v.  Fisher,  4  Fisher,  248. 
Authority  to  reissue.     Parham  v.  American  Button,  &c.  Co.,  4 

Fisher,  468. 
Danger   of.     Bailey  Washing,   &c.    Co.   v.   Lincoln,  4   Fisher, 

379. 
Date  of.     Hussey  v.  Bradley,  5  Blatch.  134;  2  Fisher,  362. 
Defects  remedied  by.      Stirapson  v.  West  Chester  Kaih'oad,  4 

IIow.  380;  2  Robb,  335. 
Defense  under  general  issue.     Bates  v.  Coe,  8  Otto,  31;  15  Off. 

Gaz.  337. 
And  disclaimers.     Schillinger  v.  Gunther,  14  Off.  Gaz.  713. 
Effect  of.     Forbes  u.  Barstow  Stove  Co.,  2  Cliff.  379  ;  Kelleher 

V.  Darling,  14  Off.  Gaz.  673. 
To  executors.      Providence  Rubber  Co.   v.  Goodyear,  9  AVall. 

788. 
Expiration.     Whitely  v.  Fisher,  4  Fisher,  248. 
Generally.     Baldwin  v.   Schultz,  9  Blatch.  494  ;  5  Fisher,  75 ; 

2  Off.  Gaz.  317;  Herring  v.  Gage,  14  Blatch.  293;  12  Off. 

Gaz.  753;  Marsh  v.  Seymour,  7  Otto,  348;  13  Off.  Gaz.  723; 

RusseU  V.  Dodge,  3  Otto,  460;  11  Off.  Gaz.  151;  Vogler  v. 

Semple,  11  Off.  Gaz.  923. 
Good,  prima  facie.     Allen  v.  Blunt,  3  Story,  742;  2  Robb,  288; 

Bantz  V.  Elsas,  6  Off.  Gaz.  117;  Poppeuhusen  v.  Falke,  4 

Blatch.  493;  2  Fisher,  181. 
Granting  of.     Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fabric  Co.,  3  Cliff.  356; 

5  Fisher,  90. 

Incapacity  of  patentee.     Jordan  v.  Wallace,  5  Fisher,  185. 
Not  for  same  invention. 

May  omit,  but  not  add  new  matter.     Albright  v.  Celluloid 
Harness  Trimming  Co.,  12  Off.  Gaz.  227. 


250  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Not  for  same  invention  —  continued. 

Expanded  to  claim  too  much.     American  Middlings  Puri- 
fier   Co.    V.    Atlantic    Middlings    Co.,    15    Off.    Gaz. 

467. 
Modification  of  opinion  as  to  relative  value  of  two  modes. 

American  Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  City  of  Elizabeth, 

6  Fisher,  424 ;  3  Off.  Gaz.  522. 
Unless  repugnant  to  original.     Andrews  v.  Wright,  13  Off. 

Gaz.  968. 
Original  for  process,  reissue  for  compound.    Atlantic  Giant 

Powder  Co.    v.   California  Powder  Works,  3  Sawyer, 

448. 
Must  be  for  same  invention.     Atlantic  Giant  Powder  Co.  v. 

California  Powder  Works,  8  Otto,  126. 
Proper  tests  to  be  applied.     Aultmau  v.  HoUey,  11  Blatch. 

317  ;  6  Fisher,  534;  5  Off.  Gaz.  3. 
Right  to  reissue  in  two  divisions.      Badische  Anilin,  &c.  v. 

Hamilton  Manufacturing  Co.,  13  Oft".  Gaz.  273. 
Reissued  to  cover  the  whole  invention  is  allowed.    Badische 

Anilin,  &c.   y. '  Hamilton  Manufacturing  Co.,   14  Off. 

Gaz.  414. 
Fraud  only  open  to  government.     Birdsell  v.  McDonald,  6 

Off.  Gaz.  682. 
Can  claim  what  is  shown  in  model.     Black  v.  Thorne,  10 

Blatch.  66;  5  Fisher,  550;  2  Off.  Gaz.  388. 
Fraud.     Blake  v.  Stafford,  6  Blatch.  195;  3  Fisher,  295. 
Immaterial  omissions.     Boomer  v.  United  Power  Press  Co., 

13  Blatch.  107. 
Granting  not  conclusive.     Bridge  v.  Brown,  1  Holmes,  53; 

6  Fisher,  236;  3  Off.  Gaz.  121. 
Is  question  of  law.     Bridge  v.   Brown,   1  Holmes,  53  ;  6 

Fisher,  236;  3  Off.  Gaz.  121. 
Fraud  on  the  public.     Brooks  v.  Fiske,  15  How.  212. 
Fraud.     Brown  v.  Guild,  23  Wall.  181;  6  Off.  Gaz.  392. 
Claim  cut  down.     Brown  v.  Selby,  2  Bissell,  457;  4  Fisher, 

363. 
Practice  and   frequency  of  reissues.      Burr  v.  Duryee,  2 

Fisher,  275. 
Expansion  of  equivocal  claims.  Burr  v.  Duryee,  1  Wall.  531. 


SYNOPSIS    OF     LAW     POINTS.  251 

Not  for  same  invention  —  continued. 

General  rules  and  principles.  Cahart  v.  Austin,  2  Cliff. 
528;  2  Fisher,  54:3. 

Described,  but  not  claimed  in  original.  Calkins  v.  Ber- 
trand,  9  Off.  Gaz.  795. 

Ingenious  attempts  to  expand  simple  into  complex.  Carl- 
ton V.  Bokee,  G  Fisher,  40. 

General  claims  are  caiefully  scrutinized.  Carlton  v.  Bokee, 
17  Wall.  403 :  2  Off.  Gaz.  520. 

May  omit,  but  not  add  new  matter.  Carver  o.  Braintree 
Manufacturing  Co.,  2  Story,  438;  2  Robb,  141. 

Question  is.  Is  it  in  the  original  in  any  shape?  Chicago 
Fruit  House  Co.  v.  Busch,  2  Bissell,  472;  4  Fisher, 
395. 

Need  not  claim  all  that  was  claimed.  Crompton  v.  Bel- 
knap Mills,  3  Fisher,  536. 

Expanded  claims.     Curtis  v.  Branch,  15  Off.  Gaz.  919. 

Mere  matters  of  mechanical  adaptation.  Decker  v.  Grote, 
10  Blatch.  331  ;  6  Fisher,  143;  3  Off.  Gaz.  65. 

Different  application  of  invention,  new  forms,  &c.  De 
Florey  v.  Raynolds,  14  Blatch.  505. 

Original  must  be  produced  to  substantiate  the  defense. 
Doherty  v.  Ilaynes,  6  Off.  Gaz.  118. 

Indistinct  descrij^tion  in  original.  Dorsey  Revolving  Har- 
vester Rake  Co.  v.  Marsh,  6  Fisher,  387. 

Omission  is  allowed  in  reissue.  Dorsey  Revolving  Har- 
vester Rake  Co.  v.  Marsh,  6  Fisher,  387. 

Better  description.  Draper  v.  Potomska  Mills,  13  Off.  Gaz. 
276. 

More  claims  in  reissue.     Fisher  i-.  Craig,  3  Sawyer,  69. 

How  far  court  will  look  into  rei.ssues.  Forsyth  v.  Clapp,  1 
Holmes,  278;  6  Fi.sher,  528;  4  Off.  Gaz.  527. 

Difference  in  composition.  Francis  v.  Mellor,  5  Fi.sher,  153; 
1  Off.  Gaz.  48. 

Must  be  broader  than  original.  French  v.  Rogers,  1  Fisher, 
133. 

Claiming  separately  what  were  conjointly.  Gallahue  v. 
Butterfield,  10  Blatch.  232;  6  Fisher,  203;  2  Off.  Gaz. 
045. 


252  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Not  for  same  invention  —  continued. 

Claiming  diiferent  sliapes  of  same  toy.     Gong  Bell  Manu- 
facturing Co.  V.  Clark,  13  Off.  Gaz.  274. 
Broader  than  original.     Goodyear  v.  Berry,  2  Bond,  189; 

3  Fisher,  439. 
Claiming  product   and   process   separately.      Goodyear   v. 

Providence  Rubber  Co.,  2  Cliff.  351 ;  2  Fisher,  499. 
Matter  of  legal  construction.     Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite 

Co.  V.  Smith,  1  Holmes,  354;  5  Off.  Gaz.  585. 
More  specific  directions.     Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co. 

V.  Wetherbee,  2  Cliff.  555;  3  Fisher,  87. 
Leaving  out  minor  features.     Gould  v.  Ballard,  13  Oft".  Gaz. 

1081. 
In  absence  of  fraud,  only  as  matter  of  law.     Graham  v. 

Mason,  5  Fisher,  1. 
Presumed  to  be  the  same.    Guidet  i'.  Barber,  5  Off.  Gaz.  149. 
Is  question  for  jury.     Heilner  v.  Battin,  27  Penn.  St.  517. 
For  what  is  described  or  shown  in  original.     Hoffheims  v. 

Brandt,  3  Fisher,  218. 
Disclaimer  by  mistake  in  original.     Hussey  v.  Bradley,  5 

Blatch.  134  ;  2  Fisher,  362. 
Legal  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  reissue.     Hussey  v. 

McCormick,  1  Bissell,  300;  1  Fisher,  509. 
Different  drawing  for  reissue.     Johnson  v.  Beard,  8  Off. 

Gaz.  435. 
After  patent  was  declared  void  for  want  of  novelty.     Jones 

V.  McMurry,  2  Hughes,  527;  13  Off.  Gaz.  6. 
Can   claim   whatever   is   shown    in   drawings   of  original. 

Kerosene  Lamp,  &c.  Co.  v.  Littell,  13  Off.  Gaz.  1009. 
Fraud  to  cover  more.     Keystone  Bridge  Co.  v.  Phoenix  Iron 

Co.,  5  Otto,  274;  12  Off.  Gaz.  980. 
Objection  not  taken  in  court  below,  so  not  open.     Klein  v. 

Russell,  19  Wall.  433. 
Inadvertence.     Lorillard  v.  McDowell,  11  Off.  Gaz.  640. 
Apparent  on  face  or  not,  state  of  art.     Metropolitan  Wash- 
ing Machine  Co.  v.  Providence  Tool  Co.,  1  Holmes,  161. 
Vagueness  brought  into  reissue  to  conceal  the  invention. 

Metropolitan    Wringing    Machine    Co.    i'.   Young,    14 

Blatch.  46. 


SYNOPSIS     OF    LAW    POINTS.  253 

Not  for  same  invention  —  continued. 

Repugnancy  to  original.     MiJdletown  Tool  Co.  v.  Judd,  3 

Fisher,  111. 
Combination  changed.     Miller  v.  Bridgeport  Brass  Co.,  14 

Blatch.  282;  12  Off.  Gaz.  667. 
Only  open  for  fraud.    Miller  and  Peters  Manufacturing  Co. 

i^.  Du  Brul,  12  Off.  Gaz.  351. 
Granting  of,  is  conclusive  unless  different  on  its  face.    Mil- 

ligan  and  Iliggins  Glue  Co.  v.  Upton,  6  Off.  Gaz.  837. 
Broader  claim  hut  .same  invention.     Morey  v.  Lockwood, 

8  Wall.  230. 
Strong  legal  presumption  in  its  favor.     Morris  v.  Eoger,  2 

Bond,  66 ;  3  Fisher,  176. 
By  statute.     National  Car  Spring  Co.  v.  Union  Car  Spring 

Co.,  12  Blatch.  80;  6  Off.  Gaz.  224. 
Need  not  have  the  exact  language  of  original.     Pearl  v. 

Ocean  Mills,  11  Off.  Gaz.  2. 
Subject-matter  is  important,  not  the  title  or  description. 

Pennsylvania  Salt  Co.  u.  Thomas,  5  Fisher,  148. 
After   adverse   decisions,   may  be  good.     Poppenhusen  v. 

Falke,  5  Blatch.  46;  2  Fisher,  213. 
What  the  provision  means.     Putnam  v.  Yerrington,  9  Off. 

Gaz.  689. 
Must  be  for  same  invention.     Reedy  v.  Scott,  7  Off.  Gaz. 

463. 
Features  of  model  may  be  put  into  reissue.     Reissner  v. 

Anness,  13  Off.  Gaz.  870. 
Putting  in  a  comma.     Robertson  v.  Secombe  ]\Ianufactur- 

ing  Co  ,  10  Blatch.  481 ;  6  Fisher,  268;  3  Off.  Gaz.  412. 
Suggestions  not  found  in  original.     Rogers  v.  Sargent,  7 

Blatch.  507. 
Outside  evidence.     Sarven  v.  Hall,  9  Blatch.  524;  5  Fisher, 

415;  1  Off.  Gaz.  437. 
More  methodically  and  clearly  described.      Searls  v.  Van 

Nest,  13  Off.  Gaz.  772. 
Interpolation  of  new  features.      Seymour  v.  Osborne,   11 

Wall.  516. 
WTien  its  consistency  with  original  is  conclusive.     Sickels 

V.  Evans,  2  Cliff.  203;  2  Fisher,  417. 


254  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

Not  for  same  invention  —  continued. 

After  fourteen  years  cannot  claim  any  thing  not  specified. 

Sickels  V.  Falls  Co.,  4  Blatch.  508;  2  Fisher,  202. 
Defendant  mnst  overcome  plaintiff's  presumjDtion.     Smith 

V.  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.,  3  Otto,  486;  11  Off. 

Gaz.  24G. 
Settled   in   prior   cases   on   the   same   subject.      Smith  v. 

Mercer,  .5  Penn.  L.  J.  .529. 
New  features.     Stevens  v.  Pritchard,  10  Off.  Gaz.  505. 
Fraud.     Swift  v.  Whisen,  2  Bond,  115;  3  Fisher,  343. 
Under  act  of  1870,  part  not  necessarily  described.     Tarr  v. 

Webb,  10  Blatch.  96;  5  Fisher,  593;  2  Off.  Gaz.  568. 
In  general.     Tucker  v.  Tucker  Manufacturing  Co.,  10  Off. 

Gaz.  464. 
Combination  may  be  subdivided   in    reissue.      Turrell   v. 

Spaeth,  14  Off.  Gaz.  377. 
No  repugnancy  or  introduction   of   new  featui'es  allowed. 

Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  v.  Leland,  1,  Holmes,  427. 
Question  is,  would  claims  in  reissue  be  good  in  original. 

Union  Paper  Collar  Co.   v.   Van  Deusen,   10  Blatch. 

109;  5  Fisher,  597;  2  Off.  Gaz.  361. 
Reason  for  the  rule.    United  States  and  Foreign  Salamander 

Felting   Co.    v.    Haven,    3   Dillon,    131;    9   Off.   Gaz. 

253. 
Cannot  be  made  to  cover  any  thing  not  in  original.     Vogler 

r.  Semple,  11  Off.  Gaz.  923. 
Decision  of  Commissioner  not   re-examinable.      Wells  v. 

Gill,  2  Off.  Gaz.  490. 
Ambiguity.      Westinghouse  v.  Gardner  and  Ransom  Air 

Brake  Co.,  9  Off.  Gaz.  538. 
Claiming  the  several  parts  separately.     Wheeler  v.  Clipper 

Mower,  &c.  Co.,  10  Blatch.  181;   6  Fisher,  1;  2  Off. 

Gaz.  442. 
Fraud  on  the  Patent  Office.     Whitely  v.  Swayne,  4  Fisher, 

117. 
Claiming  what   was    abandoned    in    original.      Wicks  v. 

Stevens,  2  Woods,  310. 
Void  for  change  in  process.     Wood  Paper  Patent,  23  Wall. 

566. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  255 

Not  for  same  invention  —  continued. 

Decision  of  Commissioner  conclusive  unless  wrong  on  its 
face.     Woodworth   v.   Stone,  3   Story,  749  ;   2   Robb, 
296. 
Joining  patentee  is  not  necessary.     Swift  v.  Whisen,  2  Bond, 

115;  3  Fisher,  313. 
Laches.     Hiissey  v.  Bradley,  5  Blatch.  134;  2  Fisher,  362. 
Nature  of. 

What  they  are,  and  what  they  must  contain.     Gill  v.  Wells, 

22  Wall.  1. 
Are  not  new  patents.     McBurney  v.   Goodyear,  11  Cush. 
(Mass.)  569. 
Without  oath.     Earth  Closet  Co.  v.  Fenner,  5  Fisher,  15. 
Object  of. 

Is  to  cure  defects.  Keystone  Bridge  Co.  v.  Phoenix  Iron 
Co.,  5  Otto,  274;  12  Off.  Gaz.  980  ;  Knight  v.  Balti- 
more and  Ohio  Railroad,  Taney,  Dec.  106;  3  Fisher,  1; 
Sarven  v.  Hall,  9  Blatch.  524  ;  5  Fisher,  415;  1  Off. 
Gaz.  437;  Schuessler  v.  Davis,  13  Ofi:.  Gaz.  1011. 
Too  broad  claims.  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  3  Fisher,  555 ; 
Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  v.  White,  7  Off.  Gaz.  698; 
Westinghouse  v.  Gardner  and  Ransom  Air  Brake  Co., 
9  Off.  Gaz.  538. 
Of  older  patent  is  complete  defense  in  absence  of  fraud.     House 

V.  Young,  3  Fisher,  335. 
Parol  testimony  in  reissuing  patents.     Union  Paper  Collar  Co. 

V.  Van  Deusen,  23  Wall.  530. 
To  patentee   after   assignment.      Wing   v.  Warren,  5  Fisher, 

548;  2  Off.  Gaz.  342. 
Power  of  Commissioner.     Whitely  v.  Fisher,  4  Fisher,  248. 
Power  of  Secretary  of   State  to  accept  surrender  and  reissue. 

Grant  v.  Raymond,  6  Peters,  218 ;  1  Robb,  604. 
Prima  facie   valid.     House    v.  Young,    3    Fisher,    335;    Phila- 
delphia and  Trenton  Railroad  v.  Stimpson,  14  Peters,  448; 
2  Robb,  46;  Stevens  v.  Pritchard,  10  Off.  Gaz.  505. 
Relate  back  to  original.     Shaw  v.  Cooper,  7  Peters,  29  ;  1  Robb, 
643;  Stanley  i'.  Whipple,  2  McLean,  35;  2  Robb,  1;  Wood- 
worth  V.  Hall,  1  W.  &  M.  248;  2  Robb,  495. 
Res  adjudicata.     Whitely  v.  Fisher,  4  Fisher,  248. 


256  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Right  to.     Conklin   v.   Stafford,  5  Off.  Gaz.   235;    Platts,  Ex 
parte,  15  Off.  Gaz.  827;  Potter  v.  Holland,  4  Blatch. 
206;  1  Fisher,  327;  Read  v.  Bowman,  2  Wall.  591. 
English  law.     Shaw  v.  Cooper,  7  Peters,  29;  1  Robb,  643. 

Scope  of.     Seymour  v.  Marsh,  2  Off.  Gaz.  675. 

Several  reissues  of  one  patent.  French  v.  Rogers,  1  Fisher,  133; 
Goodyear  v.  Wait,  5  Blatch.  418;  3  Fisher,  242;  Morse  v. 
Bain,  9  West.  L.  J.  106;  Wheeler  i'.  McCormick,  11  Blatch. 
334;  6  Fisher,  551;  4  Off.  Gaz.  692. 

"Substantially  as  described,"  is  implied.  Westinghouse  v. 
Gardner  and  Ransom  Air  Brake  Co.,  9  Off.  Gaz.  538. 

Title  of  plaintiff  is  ^n'ma  facie  good.  Middletown  Tool  Co.  v. 
Judd,  3  Fisher,  141. 

Validity  of,  generally.  Grosjean  v.  Peck,  Stow,  &c.  Co.,  11 
Blatch.  54;  Woodward  v.  Diusmore,  4  Fisher,  163. 

(See  Abandonment;  Appeal;  Assignee;  Commissioner; 
Contract;  Drawing;  Extension;  Infringement;  In- 
junction; Interference;  Renewal;  Title.) 

REJECTION. 
(See  Application;  Assignment;  Patent.) 

RELEASE. 
(See  Injunction.) 

REMEDY. 

(See  Contract;  Equity;  Infringement;  Injunction; 
Jurisdiction;  Patent.) 

REMOVAL. 

(See  Suits.) 

RENEWAL. 

"VVIiat  it  is.     Wilson  v.  Turner,  Taney,  Dec.  278. 
Means  "extension,"  not  "reissue."     Day  v.  Cary,  1  Fisher, 
424;  Goodyear  v.  Cary,  4  Blatch.  271. 
(See  Extension.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  257 


REPEAL   OF   PATENTS. 

Application  to  repeal.     McGaw  v.  Bryan,  1  U.  S.  L.  J.  582. 
Bill  to  vacate  must  appear  to  be  by  District  Attorney.     United 

States  ex  rel.  West  v.  Doughty,  7  Blatch.  42i. 
Extension  already  expired.     Bourne  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall.  811. 
False  suggestions.     Delano   v.    Scott,   1  Gilpin,  489;   1  Robb, 

700. 
Government  alone  can  vacate.     Mo  wry  t'.  Whitney,  14  Wall. 

434;  5  Fisher,  513;  1  Off.  Gaz.  499. 
Issued  to  wrong  man.     Appleton  r.  Bacon,  2  Black,  699. 
Mandamus,  scii-e  facias,  matters  of  record.     Wood,  Ex  parte,  9 

Wheat.  603  ;  1  Robb,  438. 
Power  of  court.     Foster  r.  Lindsay,  7  Off.  Gaz.  514;  Foster  v. 

Lindsay,  8  Off.  Gaz.  1032. 
Process  to  repeal.     Wood  v.  Williams,  1  Gilpin,  517;  1  Robb, 

717. 
Proper  way,  to  vacate.     Attorney-General  v.  Rumford  Chemical 

Works,  9  Off.  Gaz.  1062. 

(See  JuRiSDiCTiox;  Patext  ;  Suits.) 

REPLEVIN. 

Aveiy  V.  Bushnell,  123  Mass.  349. 

REPLICATION. 
(See  Pleading.) 

REPORT. 

(See  Master's  Report.) 

REPRESENTATIVES. 
(See  Partners.) 

RES   ADJUDICATA. 

(See  Decree;  Master;  Reissue.) 
17 


258  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 

RESCISSION. 

(See  Contract.) 

RESTORATION. 
(See  Invkntion.) 

RESTRAINT   OF   TRADE. 
(See  CoxTKACT ;  Estoppel.) 

RESTRICTION. 

(See  Assignment.) 

RESULT. 

(See  Construction  of   Patents;  Infringement;  Patent- 
ability.) .  ^ 

REVIEW. 
(See  Bill;  Supplemental  Bills.) 

REVISION. 
(See  Interlocutory  Orders.) 

REVIVOR. 
(See  Bill;  Suits;  Surrender.) 

RIGHTS. 

(See  Assignee;   Assignment;   Contract;   Damages;  In- 
ventor; Joint  Owners  ;  License.) 

ROYALTY. 

(See  Administrator;   Contract;  Damages;  Inventor; 
Master;  Sale;  Suits.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW     POINTS.  259 


RULINGS. 

(See  Exceptions;    Master's    Repout;    New   Trial;    Pue- 
LiMiNAUY  Injunctions.) 

SALARY  OF  DEFENDANT. 
(See  Damages.) 

SALE. 

By  agent.     ]\Iorse  v.  Davis,  5  IJlatch.  40. 

What  it  carries.     Faniiigton  i-.  Gregory,  4  P'isher,  221;  Far- 
ringtou  v.  Water  Commissioners,  4  Fisher,  216. 
Gives   right   to  use   and  repair,   but  not  make  new  ones. 
Aiken  v.  Mancliester  Print  Works,  2  Cliff.  435;  Union 
Metallic  Cartridge  Co.  v.  United  States  Cartridge  Co., 
11  Off.  Gaz.  ink 
Under  contract,  royalty.     Wilder  v.  Stearns,  48  N.  Y.  056. 
Effect  of  sale.     Howe  v.  Wooldredge,  12  Allen  (Mass.),  18. 
Election  to  recede.     Hotchkiss  v.  Oliver,  5  Denio  (N.  Y.),  314. 
Purchaser  from  inventor  before  extension  may  use  after.     Blaii- 

chard  v.  AViiitney,  3  Blatch.  307. 
False  representations.     Cowan  u.  Dodd,  3  Cold.  (Tenn.)  278. 
Fraud.     Burrall  o.  Jewett,  2  Paige  (N.  Y.),  134. 
By  guardians,  injurious  to  infants,  set  aside.     Leonard  v.  Bar- 

num,  34  Wise.  105. 
Of  infringing  machine.     Bell  v.  Bonnej',  7  La.  Ann.  170. 
General  law  of  right  to  sell.     Celluloid  INIanufacturing  Co.  v. 
Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.,  11  Blatch.  375;  10  Off.  Gaz. 
41. 
Legislation,  State. 

Indiana  law.     W.  A.  Wood,  &c.  Co.  c.  Caldwell,  54  Ind. 

270. 
Against,  is  void.     Crittenden  v.  White,  23  ]\Iinn.  24;  Rob- 
inson, Ex  parte,  4  Fisher,  186. 
Patentee's  rights  are  federal.     HoUida  v.  Hunt,  70  111.  109. 
Right  to  sell  unless  injurious  to  public  morals,  health,  &c. 
Patterson  v.  Commonwealth,  11  Bush  (Ky.),  311  :   Pat- 
terson I'.  Commonwealth  of  Kentucky,  7  Otto,  501. 


260  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Machine  (or  thing)  sold  passes  out  of  monopoly.  Adams  v. 
Burke,  1  Holmes,  40;  4  Fisher,  392;  1  Off.  Gaz.  282  ; 
Adams  v.  Burke,  17  Wall.  453;  American  Cotton  Tie 
Co.  V.  Simons,  13  Off.  Gaz.  967;  Chaffee  v.  Boston 
Belting  Co.,  22  How.  217;  Goodyear  v.  Beverly  Rub- 
ber Co.,  1  Cliff.  348;  McKay  v.  Wooster,  2  Sawyer, 
373;  6  Fisher,  375;  3  Off.  Gaz.  441 ;  Mitchell  v.  Haw- 
ley,  16  Wall.  544;  3  Off.  Gaz.  241. 
Sold  by  assignee  does,  by  licensee  does  not.  Hawley  v. 
Mitchell,  1  Holmes,  42;  4  Fisher,  388;  1  Off.  Gaz.  606. 
Sale  of  patented  machine  and  thing  covered  by  other's  patent  is 

license  to  use  thing.     Burr  v.  Putney,  38  N.  H.  44. 
Patentee  cannot  control  use  of  thing  sold.     Metropolitan  Wash- 
ing Machine  Co.  v.  Earle,  3  Wall.  Jr.  320;  2  Fisher,  203. 
Of  patent  right,  jurisdiction.     Burr  v.  Gregory,  2  Paine,  426. 
No  implied  warranty.     Hiatt  v.  Twomey,  1  Dev.  &  B.  Eq. 

(N.  C.)  315. 
Implied  warranty.     Johnson  v.  Willimantic  Linen  Co.,  33 
Conn.  436. 
Of  personal  property,  implied  warranties.     Sherman  v.  Cham- 
plain  Transportation  Co.,  31  Vt.  162. 
Prior  sale  for  two  years.     Hovey  v.  Henry,  3  West.  L.  J.  153. 
Without  title,  general  principle.       Holden  v.  Curtis,  2  N.  H. 

61. 
(See  Abandonment;  Dedication;   Definition;  Estoppel; 
Infringement;  Patent;   Preliminarny   Injunctions; 
Public  Use;  Want  of  Novelty.) 

SATISFACTION. 
(See  Suits.) 

SAVING. 
(See  Damages.) 

SCIENCE. 

(See  Books  ;  Statute.) 


SYNOPSIS    OF     LAW     POINTS.  261 

SCIEXTIFIC   MEN. 
(See  Experts;  Original  Inventor.) 

SEAL. 
(See  Notary.) 

SECRECY. 

Inventions  may  be  kept  secret.     Bates  v.   Coe,  8  Otto,  31 ;  15 
Off.  Gaz.  337. 

(See  Injunction;  Uncertainty.) 

SECRETARY   OF   STATE. 
(See  Reissue.) 

SERVICE. 

(See  Waiver.) 

SHERIFF. 
(See  Infringement.) 

SILEXCE. 

(See  Estoppel.) 

SKETCHES. 
(See  Invention  )  > 

SPECIAL   ACT. 
(See  Acts;  Commissioner.) 

SPECLA.L   MATTER. 
(See  Pleai>ing.) 


262  PATENT     CASE    INDEX. 

SPECIAL   PLEAS. 
(See  Pleading.) 

SPECIFIC   PERFORMANCE. 
(See  Contract;  Injunction.) 

SPECIFICATION. 
(See  CoNSTKUCTiON  OF  Patents;  Drawing.) 

STATE  OF   THE   ART. 

(See  Construction  of  Patents;  Evidence;  Infringe- 
ment; Original  Inventor;  Patentability;  Want 
of  Novelty.) 

STATE   COURTS. 
(See  In.tunction  ;  Jurisdiction;  Patent.) 

STATUTE  OF   FRAUDS. 
(See  Contract.) 

STATUTES. 

Analysis  of  the  patent  law.     Evans  v.  Eaton,  1  Peters  C.  C.  .322; 

1  Robb,  68. 
Construction  of.     Ransom  v.  Mayor  of  New  York,  4  Rlatch.  157; 
1  Fisher,  2.32. 
C'ourts  do  not  supply  deficiencies  in  legislation.     C^arver  v. 
Braintree  Manufacturing  Co.,  2  Story,  432;  2  Robb, 
141. 
Forbidding  contracts  for  supplies  by  government  with  its  army 

officers.     United  States  v.  Burns,  12  Wall.  246. 
Patent  law. 

History  of.     Tlioinpson  v.  Haight,  1  U.  S.  L.  J.  563. 
Construction  of.     Fuller  r.  Goodrich,  6  Bissell,  203. 
In  regard  to  foreign  patents.     Henry  v.  Providence  Tool 
Co.,  14  Off.  Gaz.  8.35. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW     POINTS.  2G3 

Object  of  patent  law. 

To  encourage  useful  experiments  reduced  to  practice.     Elli- 

thorp  V.  Robertson,  4  Blatoh.  307;  2  Fisher,  83. 
To  secure  to  public  advantages  derived  from  discoveries. 

Grant  v.  Raymond,  (5  Peters,  218;  1  Robb,  004. 
To  carry  out  provision  to  promote  science  and  the  useful 

arts.     Howe  v.  Wooldredge,  12  Allen  (Mass.),  18. 
Ultimately  to  benefit  the  public.      Kendall  v.  Winsor,  21 

How.  322. 
Analysis  of  certain  provisions.     Page   v.  Ferry,  1   Fisher, 

298. 
To  secure  to  inventors  exclusive  right  for  definite  periods. 

Pike  V.  Potter,  3  Fisher,  55. 
Reasons  for  patent  law.     Goodyear  v.  Iliillihen,  2  Hughes,  492; 

3  Fisher,  251. 
(See    Abandonment;    Acts;    Assignment;  Damages;  Evi- 
dence;   Limitation;    Patent;    Rehearing;    Reissue; 
Vacancies.) 

SUBJECT-MATTER. 
(See  Jurisdiction.) 

"SUBSTANTIALLY    AS    DESCRIBED." 
(See  Definition;  Reissue.) 

SUBSTITUTE. 
(See  Infringement.) 

SUCCESS. 
(See  Usefulness.) 

SUGGESTIOXS. 
(See   Inventor;  Original  Inventor;  Patentability;  Re- 
issue; Repeal;  Want  of  Novelty.) 

SUITS. 

Authority  to  build  no  bar  to  suit.     Pitts  v.  Jameson,  15  Barb. 
(N.  y.)  310. 


264  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Brought  wherever  defendant  is  found.     Thompson  v.  Mendel- 
sohn, 5  Fisher,  187. 
On  separate  claims.     Cook  v.  Ernest,  5  Fislier,  396 ;  2  Off.  Gaz. 

89. 
Unreasonable  delay  in  bringing.      Cooper  v.  Mattheys,  8  Law 

Rep.  413. 
May  be  for  any  one  device  covered  by  patent.     McComb  v. 

Ernest,  1  Woods,  195. 
Importance  of  patent  suits.     Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.  516. 
For  infringement. 

Are  by  jury.     Motte  v.  Bennett,  2  Fisher,  642. 

Must  be  in  United  States  courts.     Woven  Tape  Skirt  Co., 

In  re,  12  Hun  (X.  Y.),  111. 
Inventor  selling  may  sue  for  infringements  before.     Moore 
V.  Marsh,  7  Wall.  515. 
Interest  required  to  sue.     ]\Ioore  v.  Marsh,  7  Wall.  515. 
By  licensee. 

Properly  in  name  of  patentee.  Goodyear  v.  Bishop,  2  Fisher, 

96;  Goodyear  o.  McBurney,  3  Blatch.  32. 
Release  by  patentee  of  no  avail.     Goodyear  v.  Bishop,  2 
Fisher,  96. 
Name  of  patentee,  suit  by  territorial  grantee.     Hill  v.   Whit- 
comb,  1  Holmes,  317;  5  Off.  Gaz.  430. 
Xotice  of  suit  for  fraud.     Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  r.  Whit- 
ney, 31  Leg.  Int.  229. 
Patent  suits  in  law  and  equity.     Goff  v.  Stafford,  14  Off.  Gaz. 
748. 
Are  between  parties,  not  United  States.    Wood  v.  Williams, 
1  Gilpin,  517;  1  Robb,  717. 
Patentee  having  full  satisfaction  from  maker  cannot  sue  his  pur- 
chaser.    Perrigo  v.  Spaulding,  13  Blatch.  389 ;  12  Off.  Gaz. 
352. 
Against  purchaser  after  preliminary  injunction  against  maker. 
Gilbert   and   Barker     Manufacturing    Co.    v.    Bussing,    12 
Blatch.  426;  8  Off.  Gaz.  144. 
By  receiver  for  conveyance  of  patent.     Clan  Ranald  v.  Wyckoff, 

41  N.  Y.  Supr.  527. 
To  recover  purchase-money  for  assignment.     Foss  v.  Richard- 
son, 15  Gray  (Mass.),  303. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  265 

To  recover  royalties.  Ilowei;.  Wooldredge,  12  Allen  (Mass.),  18. 
Removal  to  United  States  courts.      Florence  Sewing  Machine 

Co.  f.  Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.,  110  Mass. 

70. 
Reviving  suit  against  legal  representatives.      Smith  v.  Baker's 

Administrators,  5  Off.  Gaz.  496. 
Right   to   sue.     Aiken  v.  Dolan,  3  Fisher,   197;  Chambers  v. 
Smith,  5  Fisher,  12;  Potter  v.  Holland,  4  Blatch.  206; 
1  Fisher,  327. 

Assignee  of  half,  joint  action.      Whittemore  i;.  Cutter,  1 
Gall.  429;  1  Robb,  28. 
To  vacate  patents.      Merserole  v.   Union  Paper  Collar  Co.,  6 

Blatch.  356;  3  Fisher,  483. 
(See  Assignee;    Assignment;    Corporation;    Disclaimer; 

Equity;    Injunction;    Partners;     Surrender;    Sur- 
vivor.) 

SUPPLEMENTAL    BILLS. 
In  nature  of  bill  of  review.     Blandy  v.  Griffeth,  6  Fisher,  484, 

SUPREME    COURT. 
(See  Construction  OF  Patents;  Court;  Prior  Judgment.) 

SURPRISE. 
(See  New  Trial.) 

SURRENDER. 
Bars  suit  and  it  cannot  be  revived.      Fry  v.  Quinlan,  13  Blatch. 
20.5;  Moffitt  V.  Gaar,  1  Black,  273;  Reedy  i-.  Scott,  7  Off. 
Gaz.  463. 
Withdrawing  surrenders.     Forbes  v.  Barstow  Stove  Co.,  2  Cliff. 
379. 

(See  Patent.) 

SURREPTITIOUS    PATENT. 
(See  Patent.) 

SURROGATE. 
(See  Jurisdiction.) 


266  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


SURVIVOR. 

Of  actions  for  infringement.      Atterbury  v.  Gill,  1.3  Off.  Gaz. 
276. 

SUSPENSION. 
(See  Injunction;  Master's  Report.) 

TAXATION. 

(See  Costs.) 

TAXES. 

Power  of  city  to  make  taxpayers  pay  for  use  of  patented  pave- 
ment.    Dean  v.  Charlton,  23  Wis.  590. 

TECHNICAL    TERMS. 
(See  Construction  of  Patents.) 

TERMS. 
(See  Experts;  Injunction;  Uncertainty.) 

TEST. 
(See  Infringement.) 

TESTIMONY. 
(See  Evidence ;  Preliminary  Injunctions;  Witnesses.) 

THEORY. 

(See  Construction  of  Patents  ;  Preliminary  Injunctions; 
Publications.) 

TITLE. 

Authority  of  Patent  Office  action  on  title.     Wilson  v.  Barnum, 
2  Fisher,  635. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  267 

Of  complainant.      Dorsey   Revolving  Harvester   Rake   Co.    v. 
Marsh,  G  Fisher,  387. 
Reissue  taken  by  executor.     Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fab- 
ric Co.,  3  Cliff.  350;  5  Fisher,  90. 
Unrecorded  assignment.       Perry  v.  Corning,  7  Blatch.  195. 
Two  assignments,  question  wliat  passed  by  first.    Mowry 
V.  Grand  Street  and  Newtown  Railroad,  10  Blatch.  89  ; 
5  Fisher,  586. 
(See    Assignment;    Declakatiox;    Equity;    Extension; 
Note;  Patent;  Pkeliminauy  Ix.junctioxs;  Reissue; 
Sale.) 

TORT. 

(See  Corporation;  Fraud;  Infringement.) 

TRESPASS. 
(See-  Infringement.) 

TRIAL. 
(See  Jury.) 

UNCERTAINTY    IN    SPECIFICATION. 

Ambiguity  may  be  explained  by  affidavit  annexed  to  specifica- 
tion.    Pettibone  v.  Derringer,  4  Wash.  215;  1  Robb,  1.52. 

Certainty  in  claims.     Calkins  v.  Bertrand,  9  Off.  Gaz.  795. 

Reasonable  certainty.     Lowell  r.  Lewis,  1  Mason,  182;  1  Robb, 
131  ;  Parker  v.  Stiles,  5  McLean,  44. 

Chemical  compound  should  state  ingredients  clearly.     Tyler  v. 
Boston,  7  Wall.  327. 

Clearness  is  condition  precedent  of  validity.     Seyiponr  v.  Os- 
borne, 11  Wall.  51 G. 

Clearness  required. 

So  that  it  may   not  be  ignorantly  infringed.       Judson   v. 

Moore,  1  Bond,  285;  1  Fislier,  544. 
Sufficient  to  show  nature  of  invention.      Leroy  r.  Tathara, 
22  How.  132. 


268  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Clearness  required  —  continued. 

Must    point    out  improvement  so   the   public   can  know. 

Dixon  V.  Moyer,  4  Wash.  68;  1  Robb,  32i. 
Not  for  ordinary  but  for  skilled  mechanic.      Dorsey  Re- 
volving Harvester  Rake  Co.  v.  Marsh,  6  Fisher,  387. 
Must  specify  clearly  what  he  claims  as  his  own.     Ilolliday 

V.  Rheem,  IS  Penn.  St.  465. 
Distinct  and  specific  statement  of  what  is  new.     Merrill  v. 

Yeomans,  4  Otto,  568;  11  Off.  Gaz.QTO. 
Distinction  between  new  and  old.      Monce  v.   Adams,  12 

Blatch.  1 ;  7  Off.  Gaz.  177. 
Disclosing  whole  truth,  materiality  of  concealment,  for  jury. 

Reutgen  v.  Kanowrs,  1  Wash.  168;  1  Robb,  1. 
So  that  public  could  put  machine  in.  use.     Sullivan  v.  Red- 
field,  1  Paine,  441;  1  Robb,  477. 
Fixed  rule  given  which  will  insure  success.      Tilghman  v. 

Werk,  1  Bond,  511;  2  Fisher,  229. 
Mechanic  of  ordinary  skill  to  make.     Wilbur  v.  Beecher, 
2  Blatch.   132;  Woodworth   v.   Wilson,  4  How.  712;  2 
Robb,  473. 
Skilled  in  the  art  could  make.     Wood  v.  Underbill,  5  How. 
1 ;  2  Robb,  588. 
Is  for  court,  if  without  meaning  is  void.      Davis  v.  McCormick, 
2  Brock.  297;  1  Robb,  518;  Emerson  (.-.  Hogg,  2  Blatch.  1. 
Courts  are  reluctant  to  hold  void  for   uncertainty.     Swift   o. 

Whisen,  2  Bond,  115;  3  Fisher,  343. 
Disclosure  of  the  secret,  English  practice  and  ours.     Whitney  v. 

Emmett,  1  Baldwin,  303;  1  Robb,  567. 
Void  on  the  face.     Allen  v.  Hunter,  6  McLean,  303. 

A  question  of  law.     Judson  v.  Cope,  1  Bond,  327  ;  1  Fisher, 
615. 
Intent  to  deceive  is  necessary.     Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall. 

429 ;  1  Robb,  28. 
Impossible  to  make  merchantable  goods  by  directions   giveti. 

Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall.  788. 
Object  of  provision.     Wayne  u.  Holmes,  1  Bond,  27;  2  Fisher, 
20. 
Twofold,  public   benefit  at  last,  and  no  ignorant  infring- 
ing.    Mabie  v.  Haskell,  2  Cliff.  507. 


SYNOPSIS     OF    LAW     POINTS.  269 

Omissions.      Burden  v.  Corning,  2  Fisher,  477. 

Mainly  a  question  of  fact.     Carver  v.  Braintree  ^Manufacturing 

Co.,  2  Story,  432;  2  Robb,  141. 
Partly  law  and  partly  fact.     Goodyear  v.  Wait,  5  Blatch.  468; 

3  Fisher,  242. 
Too  vague  and  indefinite  terms.     Ryan  v.  Goodwin,  :?  Sumner, 

514;  1  Robb,  725. 
Variance  between  specification  and  machine  is  judicial  question. 

Grant  v.  Raymond,  6  Peters,  218;  1  Robb,  604. 
(See  Defective  Specification;  Patent.) 

UNMARKED    ARTICLES. 
(See  Penalty.) 

UNPATENTED    ARTICLES. 
(See  Damages;  Penalty.) 

UNTESTED    PATENTS. 
(See  Preliminary  Injunctions.) 

USE. 

Distinction  between  right  to  make  and  vend  and  right  to  use. 
Jenkins  r.  Greenwald,  1  Bond,  126;  2  Fisher,  37;  Mitchell 
V.  Hawley,  10  Wall.  544;  3  Off.  Gaz.  241;  Steam  Cutter 
Co.  V.  Shelden,  10  Blatch.  1;  5  Fisher,  477. 

Means  by  others  than  patentee.  Morris  v.  Huntington,  1  Paine, 
348;  1  Robb,  448. 

After  expiration  of  license.  Wood  worth  t'.  Curtis,  2  W.  &  M. 
524;  2  Robb,  603. 

Right  to  use  continues  after  extension.  Day  v.  Union  India- 
rubber  Co.,  3  Blatch.  488;  Day  v.  Union  India-rubber  Co., 
20  How.  216. 

Right  to  use  one  machine  implies  right  to  make  it.  Woodworth 
V.  Curtis,  2  W.  &  M.  524;  2  Robb,  603. 

(See  Abandonment;  Assignee;  Assignment;  Extension; 
Inventor;  License;  Prior  Knowledge.) 


270  PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


USEFULNESS. 

To  any  degree  useful.     Bell  y.  Daniels,  1  Bond,   212;  1  Fisher, 
372;  Wilbur  v.  Beecher,  2  Blatch.  132. 

Degree  required,  no  particular  amount.     Bliss  v.  City  of  Brook- 
lyn, 10  Blatch.  521. 

Extensive  use  as  evidence.     Adams  v.  Edwards,  1  Fisher,  1. 

Good  faith  of    defense  questioned.      Robertson  o.    Garrett,  10 
Blatch.  490;  6  Fisher,  278. 

Whether  for  court  or  jury,   qucere.      Langdon    v.  De  Groot,  1 
Paine,  203.     1  Robb,  433. 

If  imposition  on  public,  court  should  so  charge  the  jury.     Lang- 
don V.  De  Groot,  1  Paine,  203. 

License  to  defendant  is  evidence.     Lee  v.  Blandy,  1  Bond,  361; 
2  Fisher,  89. 

Means. 

Not  frivolous  or  mischievous.     Cook  v.   Ernest,  5  Fisher, 

396;  2  Off.  Gaz.  89. 
Not  mischievous.     Cox  v.  Griggs,  1  Bissell,  362 ;  2  Fisher, 

174. 
Not  pernicious,  frivolous,  or  worthless.     Crompton  v.  Bel- 
knap Mills,  3  Fisher,  536. 
Not  frivolous  or  dangerous.     Hoffheims  o.  Brandt,  3  Fisher, 
218. 

Shown  by. 

By  being  contested  by  defendant.     Rice  r.  Heald,  13  Pac.  ■ 

L.  R.  33. 
Patent  jD?-tm a /ac/e  evidence.     Bell  v.  Daniels,  1  Bond,  212; 

1  Fisher,  372;  Vance  v.  Campbell,  1  Fisher,  483; 
Waterbury  Brass  Co.  v.  Miller,  9  Blatch.  77;  5  Fisher, 
48. 

Popularity.      Stuart  v.  Shantz,  6  Fisher,  35;  9  Phila.  376  ; 

2  Off.  Gaz.  524. 

Practical  success.     Bussey  v.  Hicks,  9  Off.  Gaz.  300. 

Use  by  defendants  and  others.      Rice  v.  Ileald,   13  Pac. 

L.  R.   33;  Smith  v.    Glendale   Elastic   Fabric    Co.,   1 

Holmes,  340;  5  Off.  Gaz.  429. 
General  utility  and  non-use  are  inconsistent.     Sayles  v.  Chicago 
and  Northwestern  Railroad,  3  Bissell,  52;  4  Fisher,  586. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW     POINTS.  271 

Must  be  a  practical  means  of  doing  what  is  desired.     Roberts  v. 

Ward,  4  McLean,  565;  2  Robb,  740. 
(See  Damages;  Definition;   Infringement;  Original  In- 
ventor; Patentability;  Want  of  Novelty.) 

VACANCIES. 

Statute  for  filling.  American  Wood  Paper  Co.  v.  Glen  Falls 
Paper  Co.,  8  Blatch.  518. 

VAGUENESS. 

(See  Publications;  Reissue.) 

VALIDITY. 

As  a  defense.     Rice  v.  Garnhart,  34  Wis.  453. 

Generally.     Carr  v.  Rice,  1  Fisher,  198. 

Is  for  jury.     Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Douglass,  2  Fisher,  330. 

Oath.     Dyer  v.  Rich,  1  Metcalf  (Mass.),  180. 

Patent /imHrt /ac/e  evidence.  Alden  v.  Dewey,  1  Story,  336;  2 
Robb,  17;  Allen  v.  Hunter,  6  McLean,  303 ;  Jones  v.  Burn- 
ham,  67  Maine,  93;  McDougall  v.  Fogg,  2  Bosw.  (N.  Y.) 
387;  Smith  v.  Woodruff,  1  Mc Arthur,  459;  6  Fisher,  476; 
4  Off.  Gaz.  635. 

Several  reasons  why  a  patent  may  be  invalid.  Marsh  v.  Sey- 
mour, 7  Otto,  348 ;  13  Off.  Gaz.  723. 

(See  Contract;  Injunction;  Jurisdiction;  Preliminary 
Injunctions;  Prior  Judgment;  Reissue.) 

VARIANCE. 
(See  Nonsuit;  Uncertainty.) 

VARIATIONS. 
(See  Infringement.) 

VERDICT. 

Further  instructions  after  verdict.     Florence  Sewing  IMachine 
Co.  V.  Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co.,  110  Mass.  70. 
(See  Assignment;  Defective  Specification;  New  Trial; 
Prelimi.naky  Injunctions.) 


272  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

VINDICTIVE. 

(See  Damages  ;  lNjUNCTio>f.) 

WAIVER. 

Of  conditions  prescribed  by  court.     Ransom  v.  Mayor  of  New 

York,  4  Blatch.  157. 
Of  irregular  service  by  appearance.      Goodyear  v.  Chaffee,  3 

Blatch.  2G8. 
Of  jurisdiction.     Doughty  v.  West,  2  Fisher,  553. 
(See  Defense;  Jurisdiction;  New  Trial;  Rehearing.) 

WANT   OF    NOVELTY. 
(^For  particular  patents^  and  that  patent  is  prima  facie  evidence, 

cases  are  too  numerous  to  cite.) 
Aggregation.      Kerosene  Lamp  Heater  Co.  v.  Littell,  13  Off. 
Gaz.  1009;  Sarven  v.  Hall,  9  Blatch.  524;  5  Fisher,  415; 
1  Off.  Gaz.  437. 
Amount  of  invention  required.     Middletown  Tool  Co.  v.  Judd, 

3  Fisher,  141. 
Amount  of  novelty  required.     Miller  and  Peters  Manufacturing 

Co.  V.  Du  Brul,  12  Off.  Gaz.  351. 
Anticipation. 

What  it  requires.     Foote  v.  Silsby,  2  Blatch.  260. 
More  than  a  model.     Johnson  v.  McCullock,  4  Fisher,  170; 
Kelleher  v.  Darling,  14  Off.  Gaz.  673;    Stillwell,  &c. 
Co.  V.  Cincinnati,  &c.  Co.,  7  Off.  Gaz.  829. 
Simple  and  cheap  invention  by  complex  and   expensive. 

King  V.  Hammond,  4  Fisher,  488. 
By  incomplete  invention.     Richardson  v.   Noyes,   10  Off. 

Gaz.  507. 
Must  be  a  practical  machine.  Sayles  v.  Chicago  and  North- 
western Railroad,  1  Bissell,  468;  2  Fisher,  523. 
Art,  state  of.  Cawood  Patent,  4  Otto,  695;  12  Off.  Gaz.  709; 
Kirby  v.  Dodge  and  Stevenson  Manufacturing  Co.,  10 
Blatch.  307;  6  Fisher,  156;  3  Off.  Gaz.  181;  Putnam 
V.  Wetherbee,  1  Holmes,  497;  8  Off.  Gaz.  320;  Recken- 
dorfer  v.  Faber,  12  Blatch.  68;  5  Off.  Gaz.  697;  Whit- 
ney V.  Mowry,  2  Bond,  45;  3  Fisher,  1.57. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW     POINTS.  273 

Art,  state  of  —  continued. 

New  process,  new  product.     Cahill  v.  Beokford,  1  Holmes, 
48. 
Burden  of  proof.     Coffin  v.   Ogden,    18  Wall.    120;  Parker  v. 

Remhof,  14  Off.  Gaz.  601;  Putnam  v.  Yerrington,  9  Off. 

Gaz.  689. 
Change. 

Mechanical.     Fuller  v.  Goodrich,  6  Bissell,  203. 

Of  material.  Ilicks  v.  Kelsey,  18  Wall.  670 ;  5  Off.  Gaz. 
94;  Holbrook  v.  Small,  10  Off.  Gaz.  508;  Ilotclikiss  v. 
Greenwood,  11  IIow.  248. 

Material  and  form.     Isaacs  v.  Abrams,  14  Off.  Gaz.  861. 

Of  location.  Kirby  v.  Beardsley,  5  Blatch.  438;  3  Fisher, 
265. 

Colorable.     Middletown  Tool  Co.  v.  Judd,  3  Fisher,  141. 

Of  form.      Milligan  and   Iliggins    Glue    Co.   v.   Upton,  7 
Otto,  3. 
■  Structural.     Zane  v.  Peck,  12  Off.  Gaz.  518. 
Cheapness  as  evidence.     Forbush  v.  Cook,  2  Fisher,  668. 
Claims,  too  big.     Cross  v.  Huntly,  13  AVend.  (X.  Y.)  385. 
Completed    inventions,    rejected    applications    not     evidence. 

Howes  V.  McNeal,  15  Off.  Gaz.  608. 
Convenience,  greater.    Milligan  and  Iliggins  Glue  Co.  v.  Upton, 

6  Off.  Gaz.  837. 
New  effect  as  evidence.     Forbush  v.  Cook,  2  Fisher,  668. 
Examiner's  adverse  report  on  extension.     McMahon  v.  Tyng, 

14  Allen  (Mass.),  167. 
False   suggestions.      Ilofl'man    v.    Aronson,    8   Blatch.    324;   4 

Fisher,  456. 
Five  presumptions  of  novelty.     Ilussey  v.  AVhitely,  1  Bond,  407; 
.      2  Fislier,  120. 
Foreign  patents.     Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthieson,  3  Cliff. 

639;  2  Fisher,  600. 
Inventive  skill.    Clark  Patent,  &c.  Co.  v.  Copeland,  2  Fisher,  221. 
Old  machine  with  new  element.     Rheem  v.  Holliday,  16  Penn. 

St.  347. 
Old  thing  to  new  use.     Smith  v.  P^lliott,  9  Blatch.  400;  5  Fisher, 

315;  1  Off.  Gaz.  331;  Strong  v.  Noble,  6  Blatch.  477;  3 

Fisher,  586. 

18 


274  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

By  special  plea,  if  plea  is  stricken  out,  no  evidence  admitted. 

Foote  V.  Silsby,  1  Blatch.  445. 
Prior  use.     Dalton  v.  Jennings,  3  Otto,  271;  11  Off.  Gaz.  111^ 

Smith  V.  Nichols,  21  Wall.  112. 
Private  use  not  known  to  public.     Haselden  v.  Ogden,  3  Fisher, 

378. 
Sale,  two  years.     Smith  v.  O'Connor,  2  Sawyer,  461;  6  Fisher, 

469;  4  Off.  Gaz.  633. 
Must  be  specially  set  up.     Pitts  v.  Edmonds,  1  Bissell,  168;  2 

Fisher,  52. 
I>ast  step  being  "new  makes  all  new.     Klein  v.  Park,  &c.  Co.,  13 

Off.  Gaz.  5. 
"  Substantially  the  same."     Adams  v.  Edwards,  1  Fisher,  1. 
Utility.     Blake  v.  Robertson,  4  Otto,  728;  11  Off.  Gaz.  877. 
Greater  utility.       Smith  v.  Nichols,  1  Holmes,  172;  6  Fisher, 

61;  2  Off'.  Gaz.  649;  Stillwell,  &c.  Co.  v.  Cincinnati  Co.,  7 

Off.  Gaz.  829. 

(See  Injunction;  Note;  Reissue.) 

WAR. 

(See  Abandonment.) 

WARRANTY. 

(See  Contract;  Jurisdiction;  Note;  Sale.) 

WASTE. 
(See  Injunction.) 

.    WITNESSES. 

Credibility,  how  tested.  Odiorne  v.  Winkley,  2  Gall.  51 ;  1 
Robb,  52;  Teese  v.  Huntingdon,  23  How.  2. 

Interested.  Evans  v.  Eaton,  7  Wheat.  356;  1  Robb,  336; 
Evans  v.  Hettick,  7  Wheat.  453;  1  Robb,  417;  Howe  v. 
.     Underwood,  1  Fisher,  160. 

Want  of  notice  of,  must  be  objected  to  at  time.  Roemer  v. 
Simon,  5  Off.  Gaz.  555. 

Patent  Office  clerk  as  witness.     Sone  v.  Palmer,  28  Mo.  539. 


SYNOPSIS    OF    LAW    POINTS.  275 

Presumed  to  speak  the  truth.     Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthie- 

son,  3  Cliff.  639;  2  Fisher,  600. 
Proper  questions  to.     Philadelphia   and   Trenton    Railroad  v. 

Stimpsou,  14  Peters,  448;  2  Robb,  46. 
Single  witness  against  patentee  and  his  presumption.     Wood- 
worth  V.  Sherman,  3  Story,  171 ;  2  Robb,  257. 
(See   Assignment;    Costs;*  Evidence;    Injunction; 
Parties.) 


PART    III. 

LIST  OF  PATENTS  ON  WHICH  SUIT  HAS  BEEN 
BROUGHT,   AS   SHOWN   IN  LIST   I. 


PART    III. 

LIST  OF  PATENTS  ON  WHICH  SUIT  HAS  BEEN 
BROUGHT,  AS  SHOWN  IN  LIST  L 


A. 

Acid.  Attorney-General  v.  Rumford  Chemical  Works;  Oliver 
t'.  Morgan. 

Advertising  apparatus.     Gould,  H.  W.,  Ex  parte. 

Ale.     Hammer  v.  Barnes. 

Alizarine.  Badi.sche  Anilin,  &c.  Co.  r.  Hamilton  Manufactur- 
ing Co. ;  Same  v.  Higgins. 

Alkalies,  caustic.  Pennsylvania  Salt  Co.  v.  Thomas;  Thomp- 
son V.  Mendelsohn. 

Amalgamator.  Birdsell  v.  Coolidge;  Brodie  v.  Ophir  Silver, 
&c.  Co. ;  Coolidge  r.  McCone. 

Ambrotype.     Tomliiison  v.  Battel. 

Anvil.     Cawood  Patent. 

Apple-pai-er.  Sargent  v.  Carter;  Same  v.  Lamed;  Same  v.  Sea- 
grave. 

Artificial  gums,  &c.  Celluloid  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Goodyear 
Dental  Vulcanite  Co. ;  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v. 
Benjamin;  Same  v.  Davis;  Same  r.  Flagg;  Same  v.  Gard- 
ner; Same  v.  Ireland;  Same  r.  Osgood;  Same  v.  Perry; 
Same  v.  Preterre;  Same  v.  Root;  Same  v.  Schemerliorn; 
Same  v.  Smith;  Same  v.  Van  Antwerp;  Same  v.  Wetherbee; 
Same  v.  Willis;  Knowles  v.  Peck ;  Sullings  v.  Goodyear  Den- 
tal Vulcanite  Co.;  Smith  v.  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co. 

Augers.     Bruff  v.  Ives ;  De  Witt  v.  Elmira  Nobles,  &c.  Co. 


280  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

Axles,  self-lubi-icating.     Jones  v.  Field. 

Axle-boxes    for    railways.       Lightner    v.  Boston   and   Albany 
Railroad;  Same  v.  Brooks;  Same  v.  Kimball. 


B. 


Bags,  travelling.     Roemer  v.  Simon. 

Bag-ties.     Foote  v.  Frost. 

Baker,  double  reflecting.     Dobson  v.  Campbell. 

Balance.     Vaughan  v.  East  Tennessee,  &c.   Railroad;    Same  v. 

Potter. 
Bale-ties.     American  Cotton  Tie  Co.  v.  Simons ;  Cook  i'.  Ernest ; 

Johnson  v.  Beard;  Same  v.  Fassman;  McComb  v.  Beard; 

Same  v.  Brodie;  Same  r.  Ernest. 
Bank-notes.     Kneass  v.  Schuylkill  Bank. 
Bark.     Bridge  v.  Brown. 
Bark-mill.     Wilbur  v.  Beecher. 
Barrels.     Reed  v.  Reed. 
Base-ball  covering.     Mahn  v.  Harwood. 
Baths,  electric.     House  v.  Young. 
Baths,  shower.     Lai-abee  v.  Cortland. 
Bedstead.       Boyd  v.  Brown;     Same  v.  McAlpin;    Herbert  v. 

Adams. 
Bed-castors.     Blake  v.  Sperry. 
Bedstead-fastenings.     Haven  v.  Brown. 
Beer-coolers.     Turrell  v.  Cammerrer. 
Bilge-levers.     Thomas  v.  Weeks. 
Billiard  cushions.     Collender  v.  Bailey;  Same  v.  Came;  Same 

V.  Griffeth;   Decker  v.  Griffeth;    Same  v.   Grote;  Same  i;. 

New  York  Belting,  &c.  Co. ;  Same  v.  Silverbrandt. 
Biscuit-finisher.     Bell  i>.  Bonney;  Treadwell  y.  Bladen ;  Watson 

V.  Bladen. 
Blocks,  spelling.     Draper  v.  Hudson;  Hill  v.  Houghton. 
Blower,  rotary.     Hyndman  v.  Roots ;  Roots  v.  Hyndman. 
Bobbins.     Draper  v.  Potomska  INIills;  Pearl  v.  Ocean  Mills. 
Boilers,  steam.      Bell  v.  Daniels;  Same  v.  McCulloch;  Bellas  v. 

Hays;  Rice  v.  Heald. 


INVENTIONS.  281 

Boilers  steam,  cover  for.  United  States  and  Foreign  Salamander 
Felting  Co.  v.  Haven;  Same  v.  Asbestos  Felting  Co.;  Same 
IK  Lawrence  Manufacturing  Co.  ;  Same  v.  Merrimack  Man- 
ufacturing Co. 

Bolts.  Clark  v.  Kennedy  Manufacturing  Co. ;  Stanley  Works 
V.  Sargent  &  Co. 

Bomb-shells.     Hubbell  v.  United  States. 

Bonnets.  Doubleday  v.  Bracheo;  Same  v.  Sherman;  Kidd  i;. 
Spence. 

Boom-spring  traveller.     Kempton  v.  Bray. 

Boots  and  shoes.  Stevens  v.  Pritchard;  Bedford  v.  Hunt; 
United  States  v.  Thacher. 

Boots  and  shoes,  rubber.     Colin  v.  National  Rubber  Co. 

Boot  and  shoe  tips.  American  Shoe  Tip  Co.  v.  National  Shoe 
Toe  Protector  Co. 

Boot-trees.  Eames  v.  Cook;  Same  v.  Godfrey;  Godfrey  v. 
Eames;  Howe  v.  Newton. 

Boring-machine.  Farrington  v.  Gregory;  Same  v.  Water  Com- 
missioners. 

Bottle-stopper.  Putnam  v.  Hickey;  Same  v.  Wetherbee;  Same 
V.  Yerrington. 

Box-fastenings.     Parker  v.  Remhof. 

Box-machinery.     Roberts  v.  Ward. 

Bracelets.     Barclay  v.  Thayer. 

Brakes,  air.   AVestinghouse  v.  Gardner  and  Ransom  Air  Brake  Co. 

Brakes,  car.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railroad  v.  Sayles; 
Dunham  v.  Indiana  and  St.  Louis  Railroad;  Emigh  v. 
Chamberlain;  Same  v.  Railroad  Co.;  Hendrie  v.  Sayles; 
Hodge  V.  Hudson  River  Railroad;  Same  v.  Iron  Mountain 
Railroad;  Same  v.  New  York  and  Harlem  Railroad;  Same 
V.  North  Missouri  Railroad;  Robinson  v.  Hodge;  Sayles  v. 
Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railroad;  Vaughan  v.  Central 
Pacific  Railroad;  Same  v.  Railroad  Co.;  Wood  v.  Railroad 
Co. 

Brakes,  horse-car.  Mowry  v.  Grand  Street  and  Newtown  Rail- 
road. 

Bran-duster.     Carr  v.  Rice. 

Bricks.     Chambers  v.  Smith;  Wood  v.  Underbill. 

Brick-press.     Hall  v.  Wiles. 


282  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Bridges.  Dubois  i;.  Philadelphia  and  Wilmington  Railroad  Co. ; 
Keystone  Bridge  Co.  v.  Phoenix  Iron  Co. ;  King  v.  Ham- 
mond; McCay  v.  Burr;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Trimble;  Reeves 
V.  Keystone  Bridge  Co.  ;  Westlake  i;.  Cartter;  Whipple  w. 
Hutchinson . 

Bristles.     Wilkins  v.  Spafford. 

Bronzing  iron.     Tucker  v.  Tucker  Manufacturing  Co. 

Brooms.     Gillespie  v.  Cummings;  Pitcher  v.  United  States. 

Brooms,  railroad.     Isaacs  v.  Abrams. 

Brush-head.     Murphy  v.  Eastham ;  Same  v.  Kissling. 

Buckets.     Edwards  v.  Richards. 

Buckles.  Chase  v.  Sabin ;  Sargent  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Wood- 
ruff. 

Buckle-fastenings.     Schuessler  v.  Davis. 

Bungs  for  casks.     Pentlarge  v.  Beeston. 

Bungs,  impervious.     Geier  v.  Goetinger. 

Burner,  coal.     Littlefield  v.  Perry. 

Burner,  gas.     Clough  v.  Gilbert  and  Barker  Manufacturing  Co. 

Burner,  vapor.     Jeffries  v.  Wiester. 

Burnisher.     Sweetzer  v.  Helms. 

Bustles,  ladies'.     West  v.  Silver  Wire,  &c.  Co. 

Buttons.  Goodyear  v.  Matthews ;  Piatt  v.  United  States  Patent 
Button,  &c.  Co. ;  Potter  v.  Thayer. 

Buttoner.     Brooks  v.  Morehouse. 

Buttonhole  machine.     Singer  Co.  v.  Union  Co. 

"C. 

Cable,  submarine.     Colgate  v.  Westei-n  Union  Telegraph  Co. 

Camera,  plate-holder.  Ormsbee  v.  Wood;  Wing  v.  Richard- 
son; Same  V.  Schoonmaker;  Same  r.  Wai-ren. 

Camera,  solar.     Woodward  v.  Dinsmore. 

Candles.  Stainthorp  v.  Elkinton;  Same  v.  Humiston;  Thayer 
V.  Wales. 

Cannon.     Treadwell  v.  Parrott. 

Cans,  tin-.  Barry  v.  Everett ;  Same  v.  Gugenheim ;  De  Florez 
V.  Raynolds;  Serviss  v.  Stockstill. 

Capstans.     McMillin  v.  Barclay. 

Cars,  hand.     Brown  v.  Ilinkley. 


INVENTIONS.  283 

Cars,  railroad.  Cooper  v.  Mattheys ;  Finch  v.  Rikeman  ;  Imlay 
V.  Norwich  and  Worcester  Kaihoad;  Knight  v.  Raih'oad 
Co.;  Winans  V.  Boston  and  Providence  Raih'oad;  Same  r. 
Denmead;  Same  v.  Eaton;  Same  v.  New  York  and  Erie 
Railroad;  Same  t;.  New  York  and  Harlem  Railroad;  Same 
V.  Schenectady  and  Troy  Railroad ;  York  and  Maryland  Line 
Railroad  v.  Winans. 

Car-wheels.  Many  v.  Jagger;  Same  v.  Sizer;  McMahon  v. 
Tyng;  Mowry  v.  Whitney;  Needham  v.  Mowry;  Whitney 
V.  Same.  v 

Car-wheels,  horse,     Lester  v.  Palmer. 

Carburetting  air.  Gilbert  and  Barker  Manufacturing  Co.  v. 
Bussing;  Same  v.  Tirrell;  Same  v.  Walworth  Manufactur- 
ing Co. 

Carding-engines.     Dyson  v.  Danforth. 

Carding-machine.  Union  IManufacturing  Co.  r.  Lounsbury; 
Whittemore  v.  Cutter. 

Cai-penters'  squares.  Hart,  &c.  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Sargent 
&Co. 

Carpet  lining.     Chipman  ?\  Wentworth;  Fales  v.  Wentworth. 

Carpets,  making.     Thompson  v.  Haight. 

Carriages.  Comstock  v.  Sandusky  Seat  Co. ;  Richardson  v. 
Noyes;  Rubber  Step,  &c.  Co.  v.  Noyes;  Wood  v.  Wells. 

Carriage-wheels.     Sarven  v.  Hall. 

Cartridge-heads.  Union  Metallic  Cartridge  Co.  v.  United  States 
Cartridge  Co. 

Cement.     Darst  v.  Brockway. 

Chains,  stretching.     Hall  v.  Bird. 

Cheese-press.     Boomer  v.  United  Power  Press  Co. 

Child's  toy.  Gong  Bell  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Clark;  New  York 
Rubber  Co.  v.  Chaskel. 

Churn.     Dunbar  i;.  Marden ;  Rose  r.  Hurley. 

Cider-mill.     Head  v.  Stevens;  Stevens  t).  Head. 

Clapboards.     Eastman  v.  Bodfish. 

Cloth-felting  machine.  Peabody  v.  Norfolk;  Union  Manufac- 
tui'ing  Co.  V.  Lounsbury. 

Clover-machine.  Birdsell  v.  Ashland,  &c.  Co. ;  Same  v.  Hagers- 
town  Agricultural  Implement,  &c.  Co.;  Same  v.  McDonald; 
Same  v.  Perego;  Perrigo  v.  Spaulding;  Wood  v.  Williams. 


284  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Coal-screener.  Batten  u.  Kear;  Same  t;.  Silliman ;  Battin  u.  Tag- 
gert;  Heilner  v.  Batten. 

Cock,  steam-gauge.     Dalton  v.  Nelson. 

Coffins.     Forbes  v.  Barstow  Stove  Co. 

Coffin-lids.     Adams  v.  Burke. 

Combs.  Bull  V.  Pratt;  India-rubber  Co.  v.  Phelps;  Tryon  v. 
White. 

Cooling  metal.     Herring  v.  Gage;  Same  v.  Nelson. 

Corned  beef.     Wilson  Packing  Co.  v.  Clapp. 

Corn-sheller.  Adams  v.  Joliet  IManufacturing  Co. ;  Burrall  v. 
Rumsey;  McDowell  v.  Meredith. 

Corsets.  Cohn  v.  United  States  Corset  Co. ;  Foy  v.  Hunter ; 
Moody  V.  Taber;  Thompson  i;.  Jacobs. 

Corset-clasp.     Seligman  v.  Day. 

Corset-springs.     Barnes  v.  Straus. 

Corset  steel.     Egbert  v.  Lippman. 

Cotton-cleaner.  Haydsn  v.  Suffolk  Manufacturing  Co. ;  Nes- 
mith  V.  Calvert;  Suffolk  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Hayden. 

Cotton-gin.  Carver  v.  Braintree  Manufacturing  Co. ;  Carver  v. 
Hyde;  Ely  v.  Monson;  Kinsman  v.  Parkhurst;  Morris  v. 
Lowell  Manufacturing  Co. ;  Parkhurst  v.  Kinsman;  Whip- 
ple V.  Baldwin  Manufacturing  Co. ;  Same  v.  Middle- 
sex Co. 

Cotton-opener.     Whitehead  v.  Kitson. 

Cotton-preparing.     Langdon  v.  De  Groot. 

Cotton-press.     Tyler  v.  Hyde;  Wicks  v.  Stevens. 

Cotton-speeder.  Boston  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Fiske;  DavoU  ?7. 
Brown;  Moody  v.  Fiske. 

Crucibles.  Pickering  y.  McCuUoch;  Same  v.  Phillips ;  Storrs  w. 
Howe. 

Cultivators  (see  Harvesters).  Calkins  t;.  Bertrand;  Conklin 
V.  Stafford;  Dennis  v.  Eddy;  Eddy  v.  Dennis;  Marsh  v. 
Commissioner  of  Patents ;  Same  v.  Sayles ;  Sayles  v.  Hap- 
good;  State  V.  Peck;  Tracy  v.  Torrey;  TurnbuU  v.  Weir 
Plow  Co. 

Curves,  turning.  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Railroad  v.  Stimp- 
son;  Stimpson  v.  Baltimore  cand  Susquehanna  Railroad; 
Same  v.  The  Railroads  ;  Same  v.  West  Chester  Rail- 
road. 


INVENTIONS.  285 

Cuspadores.     IngersoU  v.  Benham;  Same  v.  Musgrove;  Same 

V.  Turner. 
Cutlery.     Kussell  v.  Lathrop. 
Cutlery  polisher.     Armstrong  v.  Hanlenbeck. 


D. 

Dam,  adjustable.     Cammeyer  v.  Newton. 

Deflector,  dust.     Cook  v.  Howard. 

Dental  plates.     Smith  v.  McClelland. 

Door-fastenings.     Kittle  v.  Merriam. 

Door-plates.     Loudon  v.  Birt. 

Dredge.     Morris  v.  Shelburne. 

Dredging-boats.     Brady  v.  Atlantic  Works. 

Drilling-machine.     Bates  v.  Coe. 

Drills,  grain.     Ingels  y.  Mast ;  Moore  y.  Marsh. 

Drills,  rock.     American  Diamond  Rock  Boring  Co.  v.  Sullivan 

Co. ;  Burleigh  Rock  Drill  Co.  v.  Lobdell. 
Drills,  twist.     Morse  Twist  Drill  Co.  v.  Morse. 
Drills,  well.     Rouse  v.  Fletcher. 
Drill,  wheat.     Newell  t'.  Gatling. 
Drive-well.     Craig  t".  Smith;  Ferree  r.  Smith. 
Dualin.     Powder  Co.  v.  Burkhardt. 
Dyes,  &c.     Badische  Anilin,  &c.  v.  Higgins. 
Dyeing  cloth.     Barrett  v.  Hall;  Stearns  v.  Barrett. 


E. 


Egg-beater.     Munroe  v.  Dover  Stamping  Co. 

Egg- transporter.     McKay  v.  Wooster. 

Elastic   fabrics.     Smith    v.  Elliott;   Same   v.    Glendale   Fabric 

Co. 
Elevator,  hay.     Bennet  v.  Fowler;  Elkins  v.  Kenyon;  Nellis  v. 

McLanahan. 
Engine,  fire.     City  of  New  York  v.  Ransom;  Park  v.  Little; 

Ransom  v.  City  of  New  York. 


286  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Engines,  steam.  Blandy  v.  Griifeth;  Butch  v.  Boyer;  Clark 
Patent,  &c.  Co.  v.  Copeland;  Corliss  v.  Wheeler  and  Wil- 
son Manufacturing  Co.;  Emerson  v.  Hogg;  Gould  v.  Rees; 
Hogg  V.  Emerson ;  Packet  Co.  v.  Sickels ;  Sullivan  v.  Red- 
field. 

Exercise  apparatus.     Taylor  v.  Weed. 

Explosives.  Atlantic  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  California  Powder 
Works;  Same  v.  Goodyear;  Same  v.  Mowbray;  Same  v. 
Townsend. 

Extinguisher,  fire.  Northwestern  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.  v. 
Philadelphia  Fire  Extinguisher  Co. 

F.   . 

Fanning-mill.     Johnson  v.  McCabe;  Scott  w.  Sweet. 

Fats,  purifying.  Mitchell  i;.  Tilghman;  Tilghman  r.  Mitchell ; 
Same  v.  Werk. 

Faucet,  self-closing.     Zane  v.  Peck. 

Feathers,  renovating.     MuUiken  v.  Latchem. 

Felting-machine.  Asbestos  Felting  Co.  v.  United  States  and 
Foreign  Salamander  Felting  Co. 

Fences,  wire.     New  York  Wire  Rail  Co.  v.  Walker. 

Filters.  Hall  v.  Orvis;  Stillwell,  &c.  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  &c. 
Co. 

Filter,  well.     Tillotson  v.  Munson. 

Fire-arms.  Allen  v.  Blunt;  Same  v.  Sprague;  Berdan  Fire-arm, 
&c.  Co.  V.  Remington;  Colt  v.  Massachusetts  Arms  Co.; 
Same  v.  Young ;  Henry  v.  Providence  Tool  Co. ;  Pettibone 
V.  Derringer;  Remington  v.  Allen;  Renwick  v.  Cooper; 
Same  v.  Pond;  Roberts  v.  Schuyler;  Shaw  v.  Cooper,  Smith 
V.  Allen ;  Same  v.  Rifle  Co. ;  United  States  Rifle,  &c.  Co. 
?;.  Whitney  Arms  Co, ;  White  y.  Allen;  Same  u.  Boker. 

Fireplaces.     Dodge  v.  Card. 

Flax-dressing.     Dickinson  v.  Hall. 

Flour-process.  American  Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v.  Atlantic 
Middlings  Co.;  Same  y.  Christian;  Cochrane  v.  Deener. 

Flour-machine.  Evans  v.  Chambers;  Same  v.  Eaton;  Same  v. 
Hettick;  Same  v.  Jordan;  Same  v.  Kremer;  Same  v.  Rob- 
inson; Same  v.  Weiss. 


INVENTIONS.  287 

Flour-separator.     Swift  v.  Whisen. 

Fluting-inachine.      Cole   v.   Kennedy;    King   v.   Maudelbaum; 

Same  v.  Werner;  Knox  v.  Loweree;  Kursheedt  v.  Werner; 

Werner  v.  King. 
Forge-hammer.     Geiger  v.  Cook. 
Frescoing.     Bliss  v.  Negus. 

Fruit-house.     Chicago  Fruit  House  Co.  v.  Busch. 
Fruit-jar.     Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.   Whitney;    Same  v. 

Wright;  Houghton  v.  llowley;  McCully  v.   Cunningham; 

Watson  V.  Cunningham. 
Fuel,  economizing.     Detwold  v.  Reeves. 
Fmnace,  hot-air.     Bantz  v.  Elsas;  Black  v.  Hubbard;  Same  v. 

Munson;  Same  v.  Thorne;  Same  v.  Wells;  Burns  v.  Barnes; 

Burrows  v.  Lehigh  Zinc  Co.;  Collins  v.  Peebles;  Knox  u. 

Great  Western  Quicksilver  Mining   Co.;  Liddle   v.   Cory; 

Thatcher  Heating  Co.  v.  Carbon  Stove  Co. 
Furnace,  metallurgic.     Bevin  v.  East  Hampton  Bell  Co. 
Furnace,  puddling.     Pennock  v.  Beale. 


G. 

Gaffs  for  sails.     Brown  v.  Duchesne. 

Gage  lathe.     American  Whip  Co.  v.  Lombard. 

Gang-plow.     Carter  v.  Baker;  Same  v.  Rice. 

Gas-machine.     McDougall  v.  Fogg. 

Gas-stove.     First  National  Bank  v.  Peck. 

Gates,  farm.  Wright  i'.  Glick;  Same  v.  Hickey;  Same  v.  Mc- 
Millan; Same  v.  Smithpeter. 

Gauge,  steam.  United  States  Gauge  Co.  v.  American  Gauge 
Co. 

Glass-cutter.     Monce  v.  Adams. 

Glue.     Milligan  and  Higgins  Glue  Co.  v.  Upton. 

Gold-plating.     Shaw  and  Wilcox  Co.  v.  Lovejoy. 

Grain-dryer.  Sykes  «'.  Manhattan  Elevator  aud  Grain  Diying  Co. 

Grain-grinder.     Smith  v.  Pearce. 

Grain-screener.     Hess  v.  Young. 

Grain-separators.  Booth  v.  Parks;  Howes  v.  McNeal;  Moffitt 
V.  Gaar;  Schwarzel  v.  Holenshade. 


288  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Grate-bars.     Harlow  v.  Putnam. 

Grating,  wire.     Chase  v.  Walker. 

Grist-mill.     Kernodle  v.  Hunt;  Tyler  v.  Tuel. 


H. 

Halter-rings.     Chase  v.  "Wesson. 

Haras,  putting  up.     Billings  v.  Ames. 

Hand-stamp.     Robertson   v.    Garrett;  Same   v.    Hill;  Same  v. 

Secombe  Manufacturing  Co. 
Hai;ness,  saddle.     North  v.  Kershaw;  Williams  v.  Hicks. 
Harness,  saddle-pad.     American  Saddle  Co.  v.  Hogg;  Kendall 

V.  Winsor. 
Harness-trimmings.     Albright  v.  Celluloid  Harness  Trimming 

Co. 
Harrow.     Rowe  v.  Blanchard. 

Harvester  (see  Cultivator).     Aultmau  v.  Holley;  Dorsey  Re- 
volving Harvester  Rake  Co.  v.  Bradley  Manufacturing  Co. ; 

Same  v.  Marsh;  Graham  v.  Gammon;  Ketchum,  &c.  Co.  v. 

Johnston,  &c.  Co.;  Kirby  v.  Beardsley;  Same  v.  Dodge  and 

Stevenson  Manufacturing  Co. ;  Mann  v.  Bayliss ;  Morse  v. 

Davis;  Read  v.  Miller;  Rice  v.  Garnhart;  Seymour  v.  Marsh. 
Harvester  (see  Mowkr  and  Reaper).     Seymour  v.  Osborne; 

Wheeler  v.  McCormick;  Whitely  v.  Kirby;  Same  v.  Swayne. 
Hats.     Baldwin  v.  Bernhard;  Same  v.  Schultz;  Burr  v.  Cowper- 

thwait;  Same  v.  Duryee;  Eickermeyer,  &c.   Co.  v.  Pearce; 

Gill  V.  Wells;    Gorham   v.   Mixter;    Hawley   v.    Mitchell; 

Mallory  v.   Rahmer;  Same  v.  White;  Mitchell  v.  Hawley; 

Nichols  V.  Pearce;  Sanford  v.  IMerrimack  Hat  Co. ;  Wells  v. 

Gill ;  Same  v.  Hagaman ;  Same  v.  Jacques ;  Same  v.  Yates. 
Hay-cutter.     Stevens  v.  Pierpont. 
Heddles.     Emmons  v.  Sladdin. 
Hoisting-apparatus.     Reedy  v.  Scott;  Tufts  v.  Boston  Machine 

Co. 
Hook,  self-mousing.     Middletown  Tool  Co.  v.  Judd. 
Horse-collars.     Cowan  v.  Dodd;  Same  r.  Mitchell. 
Horse-power.     Gray  v.  Hulshizer;  Pitts  v.  Hall. 
Horse-shoe.     Burden  v.  Corning;  Foss  v.  Richardson. 


INVENTIONS.  289 

Hose-couplings.     Bliss  v.   City  of  Brooklyn;  Same  v.  Gaylord 

Manufacturing  Co.;  Same  v.  Haight. 
Hotel-register.      Hawes  v.   Aiitisdel;    Same  v.  Cook;  Same  v. 

Gage;  Same  v.  AVashburne. 
Houses,  warming.  Gold  v.  Ives. 
Hydrants.     Meyer  v.  Bailey. 

I. 

Ice-cutter.     Wyeth  v.  Stone. 

India-rubber.  Ayling  v.  Hall ;  Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fabric 
Co. ;  Chaffee  v.  Boston  Belting  Co. ;  Same  v.  Hay  ward;  Day 
V.  Boston  Belting  Co.;  Same  v.  Candee;  Same  v.  Cary; 
Same  v.  Hartshorn ;  Same  v.  Newark  India-rubber  Co. ; 
Same  v.  Xew  England  Car  Spring  Co. ;  Same  v.  Stellman; 
Same  v.  Union  India-rubber  Co. ;  Elastic  Fabric  Co.  v. 
Rubber  Thread  Co.  ;  Goodyear  v.  Allen;  Same  v.  Berry; 
Same  v.  Beverly  Rubber  Co.;  Same  v.  Bishop;  Same  v. 
Bourn ;  Same  r.  Cary ;  Same  i\  Chaffee ;  Same  v.  Congress 
Rubber  Co.;  Same  v.  Day;  Same  v.  Dunbar;  Same  v. 
Evans;  Same  v.  Hills;  Same  v.  Housinger;  Same  v.  HuUi- 
hen;  Same  v.  Lunsford;  Same  v.  McBarney;  Same  v. 
Mullee;  Same  v.  New  Jersey  Central  Railroad;  Same  v.  New 
York  Gutta-percha  Co.;  Same  v.  Phelps;  Same  r.  Provi- 
dence Rubber  Co.;  Same  v.  Rust;  Same  v.  Toby;  Same  v. 
Union  Rubber  Co.;  Same  v.  Wait;  Same  v.  Wingerter; 
Gutta-percha  Co.  v.  Goodyear  Rubber  Co. ;  Hartshorn  v. 
Day;  McBurney  v.  poodyear;  Metropolitan  Washing  Co. 
V.  Earle ;  Poppenhusen  v.  Falke ;  Same  v.  New  York  Gutta- 
percha Co.  ;   Suydam  v.  Day. 

India  silks,  staining.     McGaw  v.  Bryam. 

Inkstands.     Philp  v.  Nock. 

Iron-rounder.     Reutgen  v.  Kanowrs. 

Iron,  working.     Page  v.  Dickerson. 


Jelly-glass.     Atterbury  r.  Gill. 
Joints,  steam-tight.     Poillon  v.  Schmidt. 

19 


290  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 


K. 

Kettles,   brass.      Phelps   v.  Brown ;    Waterbury  Brass  Co.   v. 

Miller;  Same  v.  New  York,  &c.  Co. 
Key-coupling  instruments.     Berger  v.  Peterson. 
Knitting-machine.     Tompkins  v.  Gage. 
Knitting-needles.     Aiken  v.  Dolan;  Same  v.  Manchester  Print 

Works;  Sands  v.  Wardwell. 
Knobs,  door.     Hotchkiss  v.  Greenwood;  Whitney  v.  Emmett. 

L. 

Lampblack.     Child  v.  Adams. 

Lamps.  Ashcroft  i>.  Hollings;  Bierce  v.  Stocking;  Carlton  v. 
Bokee;  Hardesty  v.  Smith;  Irwin  v.  Dane;  Jones  y.  Van- 
kirk;  Kerosene,  &c.  Co.  v.  Littell;  Merrill,  Rufus  S.  ;  Mil- 
ler &  Co.  V.  Bridgeport  Brass  Co.;  Nichols  v.  Newell; 
Wallace  v.  Holmes. 

Lamps,  locomotive.  Williams  v.  Rome,  Watertown,  and  Og- 
densburg  Railroad. 

Lanterns.  Dane  v.  Chicago  Manufacturing  Co. ;  Same  v.  lUi 
nois  Manufacturing  Co. ;  Dennis  v.  Ci'oss ;  Sangster  v. 
Miller. 

Last,  shoe.     Mabie  v.  Haskell. 

Lath-machine.     Moore  v.  Bare. 

Lathe,  irregular  forms.  Blanchard  v.  Beers;  Same  v.  Haynes; 
Same  v.  Reeves;  Same  v.  Sprague;  Same  v.  Whitney; 
Blanchard  Gunstock  Co.  v.  Jacobs;  Same  v.  Warner;  Gear 
V.  Grosvenor;  Same  i;.  Holmes ;  Spring  i'.  Howard ;  Same  r. 
Packard;  Whitney  v.  RoUstone,  &c.  Works. 

Leather.  American  Hide  and  Leather  Splitting,  «S;c.  Co.,  v. 
American  Tool,  &c.  Co. ;  Cahill  v.  Beckford ;  Same  v.  Brown ; 
Davis  V.  Bell;  Klein  v.  Russell. 

Leather,  crimping.  Piatt,  Ex  parte;  Russell  v.  Dodge;  Same 
V.  Place;  Stimpson  v.  Woodman;  Woodcock  v.  Parker; 
Woodman  v.  Stimpson. 

Lever,  compound.     Guyon  v.  Serrell. 

Lime,  burning.     Hill  v.  Thuermer. 


INVENTIONS.  291 

Lime-kilns.     Shelly  v.  Bramian. 

Lister.     Green  v.  Willard  Improved  Barrel  Co. 

Locks,  door.     Adams  v.  Jones;  Ball  v.  Murry;  CoflBn  v.  Ogden. 

Locks,  sash.  Groff  v.  Hansel;  Hopkins,  &c.  Co.  v.  Corbin; 
Jones  V.  Morehead;  Livingston  i'.  Jones;  Morehead  v. 
Jones;  Norwalk  Lock  Co.  i'.  Berger;  Russell  and  Erwin 
Manufacturing  Co.  i'.  ]\Lillory;  Same  v.  Manufacturing  Co.; 
Yale,  &c.  Co.  v.  North. 

Looms.  Carstaedt  v.  United  States  Corset  Co. ;  Crompton  v. 
Belknap  Mills;  Dyer  v.  Rich;  Fitz  v.  Corney;  Forbush 
V.  Bradford;  Same  v.  Cook;  Graham  v.  Mason;  Lane  v. 
Smith ;  Lowell  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Hartford  Co. ;  Pierce 
V.  Wilson;  Stone  v.  Sprague;  Taylor  v.  Collins;  Webster 
V.  New  Brunswick  Carpet  Co. ;  Wright  v.  AVilson. 

Lottery  drawing.     Vannini  v.  Paine. 

Lubricators.  Garratt  v.  Seibert;  Pelton  v.  Waters;  Seibert  v. 
Garratt. 

M. 

Martingale  rings.      Rubber  Coated,  &c.  Co.  v.  Welling;  Welling 

V.  Rubber  Coated,  &c.  Co. 
Mat,  rubber.     Brown  v.  Rubber  Step,  &c.  Co. 
Matches.     Brooks  v.   Byam;  Byam  v.  Bullard;  Same  v.  Eddy; 

Same  v.  Farr;  Ryan  v.  Goodwin. 
INLattress.     Howe  v.    Abbott;    Kittle   v.   Frost;    Muscan    Hair 

I\Ianufacturing  Co.  v.  American  Hair  Manufacturing  Co. 
Meats,  curing.     Pike  v.  Potter. 
Medicine.      Brown  v.   Wright;  Jordan   v.   Dayton;    Smith  v. 

Tracy ;  Thompson  v.  Staats. 
Metallic  plates.     Allen  ?'.  Hunter. 
Meters.     Nusbaum  v.  Emery. 
Millstone.     Gilmore  v.  Aiken. 
Millstones,  balaucing.     Wise  v.  Allis. 
Mineral  waters.     Bowker  v.  Dows. 
Mining  apparatus.     Fisher  v.  Craig. 
Mirror,  hand.     Clark  v,  Scott;  Florence  Manufacturing  Co.  v. 

Boston  Diatite  Co. 
Miter-machine.     La  Baw  i'.  Hawkins. 


292  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Mocassin  pac.     Kelleher  v.  Darling. 

Moldings.     Serrell  v.  Collins. 

Molds,  cigar.     Miller,  &c.  Co.  v.  Du  Brul. 

Molds.     Smith  v.  Marshall. 

Mop-head.     Garretson  v.  Clark;  Taylor  v.  Garretson. 

Mortising-machine.     Smith  v.  Fay  &  Co. 

Mower  (see  Cultivator,  &c.).     Commissioner  of  Patents  v. 

Whitely. 
Mower  (see  Reaper,  &c.).    Clough  v.  Patrick;  Jackson  v.  Breck; 

Read  v.  Bowman ;  Saxton  v.  Dodge ;  Sprague  v.  Adriance ; 

Walter  A.  Wood,  &c.  Co.  v.  Caldwell. 


N. 


Nail-machine.     Corning   v.  Burden;   Gray  v.  James;   Odiorne 

V.  Amesbury  Nail  Factory;  Odiorne  v.  Winkley;  Sawin  v. 

Guild;  Troy   Iron  and  Nail  Factory  v.  Corning;  Same  v. 

Odiorne;  Same  v.  AVinslow;  West  v.  Morrison. 
Nail-pullers.     Maltby  v.  Bobo. 
Navigation.     Livingston  v.  Van  Ingeu. 
Necklaces.     Mulford  v.  Pearce. 
Nets,  hair.     Dalton  v.  Jennings. 
Nickel-plating.     Hawkes  v.  Remington;  United  Nickel  Co.  r. 

Authes;  Same  v.  Keith. 
Nuts.     Wood  V.  Cleveland,  &c.  Co. ;  Samei>.  Union  Iron  Works. 


0. 


Oil.     Patterson  v.  Commonwealth;  Tyler  v.  Boston. 

Oil,  hydrocarbon.     Merrill  v.  Yeomans. 

Oil,  purifying.     National  Filtering  Oil  Co.  v.  Arctic  Oil  Co. 

Oil,  sperm.     Thomas  v.  Quintard. 

Oil-wells.     Roberts  v.  Dickey;  Same  v.  Roter. 

Operator,  self.     Avery  v.  Bushnell. 

Oven,  rotary.     Vale  v.  Butler. 

Ovens.     Ball  v.  Bailie;  Same  v.  Withington.    • 

Overshoes.     Meyer  v.  Pritchard. 


INVENTIONS.  293 


Packing  for  boxes.     Tuck  v.  Brarahill. 

Packing,  elastic.     Jenkins  v.  Johnson;  Same  v.  Walker. 

Packing,  metallic.     Matthews  v.  Skates. 

Paint-cans.     Brown  v.  Hall;  Masury  v.  Anderson;  Same  v.  Tie- 

mann. 
Paint,  marine.     Tarr  v.  Folsom;  Same  v.  Webb;  Wonson  v. 

Gilman;  Same  v.  Peterson. 
Paper-bags.     Arkell  v.  Hurd  Paper  Bag  Co. ;  Binney  v.  Annan ; 

Union  Paper  Bag  Machine  Co.  v.  Binney;  Same  v.  Crane; 

Same  v.  Murphy;  Same  v.  Newell;  Same  v.  Nixon;  Same 

V.  Puitz  and  \Valkley  Co. 
Paper-collars.     Hoffman    v.    Aronson;    Same   v.    Stiefel;   Mer- 

serole  v.  Union  Paper  Collar  Co.;  Snow  v.  Tapley;  Same  v. 

Taylor;  Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  v.  Leland;  Same  v.  Van 

Deusen;  Same  v.  White. 
Paper-folding.     Appleton  v.  Bacon. 
Paper-holders.     Smith  v.  Woodruff. 
Paper-machine.     Ames  v.  Howard. 
Paper-making.     Middlebrook  v.  Broadbent. 
Paste,  flour.     AVoodward  v.  Morrison. 
"Patent."     Stimpson  v.  Pond;  United  States  v.  Morris. 
Pavement,  concrete.   Jenkins  v.  Abbotts ;  Schillinger  v.  Gunther. 
Pavement,  stone.     Guidet  v.  Barber;  Same  v.  Palmer. 
Pavement,  wooden.     American  Nicolson  Pavement  Co.  v.  City 

of  Elizabeth;  Same  v.  Hatch;  Same  v.  Jenkins;  Bigelow  v. 

City  of  Louisville;  Dane  v.   Charlton;  Greaton  v.  Griffin; 

Jenkins  v.  Nicolson  Pavement  Co. 
Pegging-machine.     Baldwin  v.  Sibley. 
Pegging  shoes.     Gallahue  v.  Butterfield. 
Pen,  fountain.     Morse  Fountain  Pen  Co.  v.  Esterbrook  Co. 
Pen,  gold.     Rapp  v.  Bard. 
Pencil.     Reckendorfer  v.  Faber. 
Pencil-heads.     Ashcroft  v.  Cutter;  Hovey  v.  Rubber  Tip  Pencil 

Co. ;  Rubber  Tip  Pencil  Co.  v.  Howard 
Perforating-machine.     Tappan  v.  National  Bank  Note  Co. 
Petroleum.     Densmore  v.  Schofield;  Slemmer's  Appeal. 
Picks.     Klein  v.  Park  &  Co. 


294  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Pin-machine.     American  Pin  Co.  v.  Oakville  Co. 

Pipe- tongs.     Ashcroft  r.  Walworth. 

Pipes,  lead.  Gay  v.  Cornell;  Tatham  v.  Leroy;  Same  v.  Lor- 
ing;  Same  v.  Lowber. 

Pipes,  stove.     Hoeltze  i\  Hoeller. 

Pitching  barrels.     Gottfried  v.  Bartholomae. 

Planes,  bench.     Stanley  Rule,  &c.  Co.  v.  Bailey. 

Planes,  circular.     Isaacs  v.  Cooper. 

Plauing-machine.  Baker  v.  Mason;  Barnard  v.  Gibson;  Bick- 
nell  V.  Todd;  Bloomer  v.  Gilpin;  Same  v.  McQuewan; 
Same  v.  Millinger;  Same  v.  Stolly;  Brooks  v.  Bicknell; 
Same  v.  Fiske;  Same  v.  Jenkins;  Same  v.  Norcross;  Same 
V.  Stolly;  Brown  v.  Shannon;  Dean  v.  Mason;  Foss  v. 
Herbert;  Gibson  v.  Bernard;  Same  v.  Betts  ;  Same  v. 
Cook;  Same  v.  Gifford;  Same  i'.  Harris;  Same  v.  Van 
Desar;  Same  v.  Wood  worth;  Jenkins  v.  Greenwald;  Lip- 
pincott  V.  Kelly;  Livingston  v.  Woodworth:  Motte  v.  Ben- 
nett; Olcott  V.  Hawkins;  Pitts  v.  Edmonds;  Rich  v. 
Atwater;  Ritter  v.  Serrell;  Simpson  v.  Wilson;  Sloat  v. 
Patton;  Smith  v.  Patton;  Stover  v.  Halsted;  Van  Hook 
V.  Pendleton;  Washburn  v.  Gould;  Wilson  v.  Barnum; 
Same  v.  Rousseau;  Same  v.  Sandford;  Same  v.  Sherman; 
Same  v.  Simpson;  Same  v.  Stolly;  Same  v.  Turner;  Wood- 
worth  V.  Cheever;  Same  v.  Cook;  Same  v.  Curtis;  Same  v. 
Edwards;  Same  v.  Hall;  Same  v.  Rogers;  Same  v.  Sher- 
man ;  Same  v.  Stone ;  Same  v.  Weed ;  Same  v.  Wilson. 

Plank-protector.     Melius  v.  Silsbee. 

Plow.     Hall  V.  Speer. 

Plow,  drain.  Cox  v.  Griggs;  Davis  v.  McCormick;  Hays  v. 
Sulsor;  Ogle  v.  Ege;  Prouty  v.  Draper;  Same  v.  Ruggles. 

Plow,  mold-board.     Davis  v.  Palmer;  Dennis  v.  Eddy. 

Polisher,  cylinder.     Cowing  v.  Rumsey. 

Powders,  putting  up.     Sawyer  i;.  Bixby. 

"  Power."     Carl  v.  Morey. 

Preserving  corn.  Jones  v.  Burnham;  Same  v.  Hodges;  Same 
V.  McMurry;  Same  w.  Merrill;  Same  v.  Noyes;  Same  v. 
Ostrander;  Same  v.  Sewall;  Sewall  v.  Jones. 

Preserving  fish.  Brown  v.  Piper;  Piper  v.  Brown;  Same  v. 
Moon. 


INVENTIONS.  295 

Press,  baling.     King  v.  Louisville  Cement  Co. 

Printing-bed.     Clark  v.  Bousfield. 

Printing-galleys.     Hoe  &  Co.  v.  Cole  &  Co. 

Printing-machine.     Bullock  Printing  Press  Co.  v.  Jones. 

Printing-press.  Boston  and  Fair  Haven  Iron  Woi'ks  v.  Mon- 
tague; Child  r.  Boston  and  Fair  Haven  Iron  Works;  Hill 
V.  Whitcomb;  jMontague  v.  Boston  and  Fair  Haven  Iron 
Works. 

Prisons  and  jails.  Jacobs  v.  Baker;  Same  v.  Commissioners  of 
Hamilton  County. 

Pulley-blocks.     Weston  v.  White. 

Ptdp,  wood.  American  Wood  Paper  Co.  r.  Fibre,  &c.  Co. ;  Same 
r.  Glen  Falls  Co.;  Same  v.  Heft;  Anthony  v.  Carroll; 
Buchanan  t;.  Howland;  Miller  v.  Andioscoggin  Pulp  Co.; 
Wood  Paper  Patent. 

Pumps,  chain.     Barker  v.  Stowe. 

Pumps,  force.     McClure  v.  Jeffrey. 

Pumps,  gas.     Gould's  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Cowing. 

Pumps,  oil.     Shoup  v.  Henrici. 

Pimaps,  steam.  Haselden  t'.  Ogden ;  Lowell  v.  Lewis ;  Reed  v. 
Cutter;  Scaife  v.  Fulton's  Sons  &  Co.;  Same  v.  Sheriffs. 

Punching  metal.     Sturges  v.  Van  Hagen. 

Purifying  middlings.     Clark  v.  Smith. 

Purifying  spirits.     Holden  v.  Curtis. 


R. 


Railroad  bars.     Turrill  v.  Illinois  Central  Railroad. 

Rake,  hay.     Brown  v.  Whittemore ;  Joliffe  v.  Collins. 

Rake,  horse.     Hoffheims  v.  Brandt. 

Reaper  (see  Cultivator)-  Davis  &  Co.  v.  Gray;  Hussey  r. 
Bradley  ;  Same  ».  McCormick ;  Same  v.  Whitely ;  Marsh  v. 
Dodge ;  Same  v.  Dodge  and  Stevenson  Manufacturing  Co. ; 
Same  v.  McCormick;  McCormick  v.  Many;  Same  v.  Sey- 
mour; Same  v.  Talcott;  Nour.se  v.  Allen;  Seymour  v.  Mc- 
Cormick; Wheeler  i;.  Clipper  Mower,  &c.  Co. 

Reed  instrument.     Cahart  v.  Austin. 

Reed  organ.     Burdett  v.  Estey. 


296  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Reflector,  gas.     Frink  v.  Petry. 

Refrigerators.  Roberts  v.  Buck;  Same  v.  Harnden;  Same  ». 
Ryer. 

Register,  fare.     Yuengling  i'.  Johnson. 

Reservoir.     Bussey  r.  Hicks;  Same  u.  Wager. 

Rocking-chair.     Bean  v.  Smallwood. 

Rollers,  chilled.     McClurg  v.  Kingsland. 

Rollers,  dough.     Nevins  v.  Johnson. 

Rollers,  ink.     Francis  v.  Mellor. 

Rollers,  iron.     Pennock,  J.  L. 

Roof,  composition.     Plastic  Slate,  &c.  Co.  v.  Moore. 

Roof,  paper.     Howard  v.  Christy. 

Ruffles.  Elm  City  Co.  v.  Wooster;  Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Doug- 
lass; Same  v.  Elm  City  Co. ;  Wooster  v.  Calhoun. 


s. 

Saddle.     Williams  v.  Hicks. 

Saddle-making.     Dixon  v.  Moyer. 

Safes.     Adams  ik  Edwards;  Delano  v.  Scott;  Gaylor  v.  Wilder; 

Rich  V.  Lippincott;  Wilder  v.  Adams;  Same  v.  McCormick; 

Same  v.  Stearns. 
Sails  for  vessels.     Gardiner  v.  Howe. 
Salt,  putting  up.     Pennsylvania  Salt  Co.  v.  Gugenheim. 
Sand-blast.     Tilghman  v.  Hartell. 
Sashes.     Elmer  v.  Pennell. 
Sawing-macliine.    Dunbar  v.  Myers  ;  Emerson  v.  Simm;  Eunson 

V.  Dodge;    Same  v.  Peddle;    Myers  v.   Dunbar;  Same    v. 

Frame;  Same  u.  Swift;  Peek  r.  Frame;  Whitney  v.  Graves. 
Saw-mill.     Crosby  v.  Lapouraille ;  Hamilton  v.  Ives ;  Same  v. 

Kingsbury ;  Ives  v.  Hamilton ;  Nye  v.  Raymond ;  Page  v. 

Ferry;  Phillips  v.  Page. 
Saws.     Buss  V.  Putney. 
Saws,   circular.     Curtis   v.   Branch;  Hoe    o.    Simpson;  Lee  v. 

Blandy;  Orr  ?;.  Burwell ;  Spaulding  «.  Duff ;  Same  t).  Page; 

Tucker  w.  Spaulding;  Wheeler  u.  Simpson. 
Saw-set.     Aiken  v.  Bemis. 
Screw.     Pierson  v.  Eagle  Screw  Co. 


INVENTIONS.  297 

Screw-peg.     Estabrook  v.  Dunbar. 

Scythe-snaths.     Alden  v.  Dewey. 

Seats  for  circus.  Allen  v.  City  of  Brooklyn;  Jackson  v.  Allen; 
Price  V.  Kelly. 

Seed-sower.  Brown  v.  Guild;  Same  v.  Selby;  Gaboon  v.  Ring; 
Case  v.  Brown;  Cragin  v.  Fowler;  Ilolbrook  v.  Matthews; 
Same  r.  Small ;  Moore  v.  Thomas ;  Sone  v.  Palmer ;  Trader 
V.  ^Messmore. 

Sewing-machine.  Bachelder  v.  Moulton ;  Bland,  Ex  parte; 
Burdell  v.  Denig;  Chabot  v.  American  Button  Hole,  &c. 
Co.;  Cornely  v.  Henderickx ;  Dibble  v.  Augur;  Same  v. 
Sibley ;  Domestic  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Hatfield ;  Elli- 
thorp  V.  Robertson;  Ely  v.  McKay;  Florence  Sewing  Ma- 
chine Co.  V.  Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  Machine  Co. ;  Same 
V.  Singer  Co.  ;  Fuller  v.  Goodrich;  Same  v.  Yentzer;  Galpin 
V.  Atwater ;  Grover  and  Baker  Sewing  INIachine  Co.  v. 
Butler;  Same  v.  Sloat;  Same  v.  Williams  ;  Haskell  v.  Shoe 
Machine  Manufacturing  Co.  ;  Howe  v.  Morton ;  Same  v. 
Underwood ;  Same  v.  Williams ;  Same  v.  Wooldredge ; 
Johnson  v.  Root;  Parham  v.  American  Button  Hole,  &c. 
Co.;  Potter  v.  Braunsdorf;  Same  v.  Crowell;  Same  v. 
Davis  Sewing  Machine  Co. ;  Same  v.  Dixon  ;  Same  v.  Em- 
pire Sewing  Machine  Co. ;  Same  v.  Fuller ;  Same  v.  Holland ; 
Same  v.  Mack;  Same  v.  Muller;  Same  v.  Schenck;  Same 
V.  Stevens;  Same  v.  Whitney;  Same  r.  Wilson;  Sanford 
V.  Messer  ;  Singer  i\  Braunsdorf;  Same  v.  Walmesley; 
Vose  V.  Singer;  Wooster  v.  Sidenberg;  Same  u.  Taylor. 

Shade-fixtures.  Bray  v.  Hartshorn;  Hartshorn  t\  Almy;  Same 
V.  Shorey;  Same  v.  Tripp;  Vetter  v.  Leutzinger. 

Shawl-strap.     Crouch  v.  Roemer;  Same  v.  Speer. 

Shears,  tailors'.     Heinrich  v.  Luther. 

Shearing  sheep.     Earl  v.  Harlow. 

Shingle-machine.  Earl  v.  Page;  Same  ».  Sawyer;  Evarts  v. 
Ford;  Peck  v.  Bacon;  Same  v.  Farrington. 

Ships'  armor.     Heaton  v.  Quintard;  Webb  v.  Quintard. 

Sieve,  wire.  Adams  and  Westlake  ]\Ianufacturing  Co.  v.  St. 
Louis  Wire  Goods  Co. ;  Dayton  v.  Wright. 

Silk,  sewing.     Belding  v.  Turner. 

Sizing-machine.     Fuzzard  Wadding,  &c.  Co.  v.  Dickinson. 


298  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Skates.     Turrell  v.  Spaeth. 

Skirts,  hoop.  Doughty  v.  Day;  Same  v.  West;  Same  v.  West, 
&c.  Co.;  United  States  v.  Doughty;  Wilcox  v.  Komp; 
Woven  Tape  Skirt  Co.,  In  re;  Young  v.  Lippman. 

Skirt-protector.     McDonald  v.  Blackmer. 

Slate,  writing.     Street  v.  Silver. 

Sled-runners.     Lockwood  v.  Lockwood. 

Sleigh-shafts.     Davy  v.  Morgan. 

Sluice-fork.     Teese  v.  Huntingdon. 

Smut-raill.     Cansler  v.  Eaton;  Knox  v.  Murtha. 

Soap,  chemical.     Lindsay  v.  Roraback. 

Soap-making.     Warren  v.  Cole. 

Soda-powders.  Rumford  Chemical  Works  v.  Hecker ;  Same  v. 
Lauer ;  Same  v.  Vice. 

Soda-water.     Bigelow  v.  Matthews. 

Soda-water  apparatus.     Blaisdell  v.  Tufts. 

Soles  for  shoes.     Adamson  v.  Dedrick ;  Foster  v.  Moore. 

Sole-cutter.     Weed  v.  Draper. 

Spark-arrester.     Pike  v.  Providence  and  Worcester  Railroad. 

Speaking-tube.     Woolcocks  r.  Many. 

Spoons  and  forks.     Grosjean  v.  Peck,  Stow,  and  Wilcox  Co. 

Springs,  car.  Goodyear  v.  New  Jersey  Central  Railroad;  Na- 
tional Car  Spring  Co.  v.  Union  Car  Spring  Co. 

Spring,  steel.     Midkiff  v.  Boggess. 

Staple,  wire.     Rogers  v.  Sargent. 

Staves.     Brammer  v.  Jones;  May  r.  Chaffee;  Sisson  v.  Gilbert. 

Steamboat.     Cutting  v.  Myers. 

Steamboat  staging.     Converse  v.  Cannon. 

Steam-generator.     Bishchoff  u.  Wethered;  Latta  i;.  Shawk. 

Steel,  tempering.  Waterman  v.  Thompson;  Same  v.  Wal- 
lace. 

Stone-breaking  machine.  Blake  v.  Eagle  Works  Manufactur- 
ing Co.;  Same  v.  Greenwood  Cemetery;  Same  v.  Raw- 
son;  Same  v.  Robertson;  Same  v.  Stafford;  Robertson  v. 
Blake. 

Stone-channelling  machine.     Steam  Cutter  Co.  v.  Sheldon. 

Stone-crushing  machine.     Smith  v.  Freyer. 

Stone-cutting  machine.     Tilghraan  v.  Morse. 

Stone-dressing  machine.     Gilmorez;.  Golay;  Wheeler  t;.  Billings. 


INVENTIONS.  299 

Stoves.  Buck  v.  Cobb;  Same  v.  Gill;  Same  v.  Hermance;  De- 
troit Stove  Works  v.  Micliigaii  Stove  Co. ;  Dudley  v.  May- 
hew;  Foote  V.  Silsby;  Gold  and  Silver  Ore,  &c.  Co.  v.  United 
States,  &c.  Co.;  Hailes  v.  Van  Wormer;  Hathaway  v. 
Roach;  Hawks  v.  Swett;  Hender.sou  v.  Cleveland,  &c.  Co. ; 
Henry  v.  Francestown  Soapstone  Stove  Co. ;  Marston  v. 
Swett;  Orr  v.  Badger;  Same  v.  Littlefield;  Same  v.  Mer- 
rill; Perry  v.  Corning;  Peterson  v.  Wooden;  Rathbone  v. 
Orr;  Reissner  v.  Anness;  Root  v.  Ball;  Ruggles  v.  Eddy; 
Silsby  V.  Foote;  Stanley  v.  AVhipple;  Stuart  y.  Shantz; 
Vance  v.  Campbell ;  Wilson  v.  Janes. 

Straw-cutter.     Gale  v.  Nourse;  Hovey  v.  Henry. 

Sugar.  Hunt  v.  Hoover;  Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthieson; 
Weston  V.  Nash. 

Surgical  operations.     Morton  v.  New  York  Eye  Infirmary. 

SvLspender  ends.     Fisk  v.  Church. 

Suspender  straps.     Greeley,  Ex  parte. 

Suspenders.     Cleveland  v.  Towle;  Dawson  v.  FoUen. 

Syringe.     Morey  v.  Lockwood  ;  Richardson  v.  Lockwood. 


T. 


Table  beverages.     Rogers  v.  Ennis. 

Tables,  extension.     Carter  v.  Messenger;  Doherty  v.  Haynes. 

Tables,  folding.     Munde  v.  Lambie. 

Tailors'  pressing-machine.     Storrs  v.  Howe. 

Tanning-machine.     England  v.  Thompson. 

Tape,  arranging.     Goff  v.  Stafford. 

Telegraph.  Bain  v.  Morse;  Clura  u.  Brewer;  Day  v.  Bankers, 
&c.  Telegraph  Co. ;  French  v.  Rogers ;  ^lorse  v.  Bain 
Same  v.  Oreilly;  Oreilly  v.  Morse;  Smith  v.  Clark 
Same  v.  Cummings;  Same  v.  Downing;  Same  v.  Ely 
Same  v.  Selden;  United  States  Annunciator  Co.  v.  Sander- 
son; Western  Telegraph  Co.  v.  ^Magnetic  Telegraph  Co.; 
Same  v.  Penniman. 

Telephones,  pneumatic  signal.   Gower,  Ex  parte,  15  Off.  Gaz.  828. 

Tent.     United  States  v.  Burns. 


300  PATENT  CASE  INDEX. 

Thread.     Johnson  v.  Willimantic,  &c.  Co. 

Threshing-machine.  Harmon  v.  Bird;  Moffitt  v.  Gaar;  Pitts  v. 
Jameson;  Same  v.  Wemple;  Same  v.  Whitman;  Van  Os- 
trand  v.  Reed. 

Timber  frame.     Hockholzer  v.  Eager. 

Time-detector.     Buerk  v.  Imhauser;  Same  v.  Valentine. 

Tobacco.     Eppinger  v.  Richey. 

Tobacco,  labelled.     Lorillard  v.  McDowell. 

Tool-grinder.     Hovey  v.  Stevens. 

Tools.     Campbell  v.  Barclay;  Miller's  Falls  Co.  v.  Ives  &  Co. 

Topsail-yards.     Howes  v.  Nute. 

Torpedoes.     Roberts  v.  Reed  Torpedo  Co. 

Tow-boats.     Sullivan  v.  Redfield. 

Tremolo  attachment  for  organs.  Hitchcock  v.  Tremaine;  Saxe 
V.  Hammond;  Tremaine  v.  Hitchcock. 

Trucks,  cars.  Gregerson  v.  Imlay;  Locomotive  Engine  Safety 
Truck  Co.  V.  Erie  Railroad;  Same  v.  Pennsylvania  Rail- 
road. 

Truck-wheels,  removing.     Simpson  v.  Mad  River  Railroad. 

Trunks.     Gould  r.  Ballard;  Vogler  v.  Semple. 

Truss.     Higgins  v.  Strong. 

Tube-machine.     LeRoy  v.  Tatham. 

Tubes,  flexible.     Taylor  v.  Archer. 

Tubes,  leather.     Pennock  v.  Dialogue. 

Type.     Hudson  v.  Draper. 

u. 

Umbrella.     American  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Lane. 
Umbrella-case.     Odiorne  v.  Denney. 


V. 


Valves.     Bartholomew  v.  Sawyer. 

Valves  for  governors.     Judson   v.  Cope;  Same  v.  Moore;  Snow 

V.  Judson. 
Valves  for  petroleum.     Meissner  v.  Dovoe  Manufactm'ing  Co. 


INVENTIONS.  301 

Valves  for  steam-engines.  Ashcroft  v.  Boston  and  Lowell  Rail- 
road ;  Morris  v.  IIuntiugLon ;  Pacific  Iron  Works  v.  New- 
hall;  Sherman  v.  Champlain  Transportation  Co.;  Sickels 
i\  Borden;  Same  v.  Evans;  Same  v.  Falls  Co.;  Same  ?;. 
Gloucester  Manufacturing  Co. ;  Same  r.  Mitchell;  Same  v. 
Tileston ;  Same  v.  Young. 

Vault-covers.     Lake  v.  Fitzgerald. 

Vehicles.     Hall  o.  Jones. 

Veneers.     Burr  v.  Gregory. 

Ventilating  rooms.  Lyman  Ventilating,  &c.  Co.  v.  Chamberlain; 
Same  v.  Lalor. 


w. 


Wadding  (see  Sizing-Machine).      Fuzzard  Wadding  Co.  v. 

Dickinson. 
Wagons.     Flood  v.  Ilicks;  Halsey  v.  Garlick;  Hick.s  v.  Kelsey; 

Leonard  v.  Barnvim. 
W^ agon-wheels.     Young  r.  Hunter. 
Wash-board.     W'ayne  v.  Holmes;  Same  v.  Winter. 
Washing-machine.      Cross  v.  Huntly;    Eureka   Co.    v.   Bailey 

Washing  Machine  Co. ;  Osborn  v.  Herrou. 
Watch.     Jurgensen  v.  Magnin. 
Watch-chain.     Keplinger  v.  De  Young. 
Water-closet.     Earth  Closet  Co.  v.  Fenner. 
W"ater-closet  pan.     Smith  v.  O'Connor;  Same  v.  Pryor. 
Water-supply.     Holly  i'.  Union  City. 
Water-wheel.     Black  v.    Stone;  Blakenay   v.   Goode;  Boyce  v. 

Dorr;  Case  v.  Redfield;  Holliday  v.  Rheem;  Hotchkiss  v. 

Oliver;    Hiatt  v.  Twomey;    INIerchant    v.    Lewis;    Parker 

V.  Bamker;  Same  v.  Bigler;  Same  v.  Brandt;  Same  v.  Cor- 

bin;  Same  v.  Ferguson;  Same  v.  Hatfield;  Same  v.  Hawk; 

Same  v.  Haworth;  Same  v.  Hulme;  Same  v.  Sears;  Same 

V.  Stiles;  Phillips  v.  Combstock;  Rheem  v.  Holliday;  Rich  v. 

Close;  Swain  Turbine  Co.  v.  Ladd;  Wintermute  v.  Red- 

ington. 
Weaver's  harness.     Kendall  v.  W^insor;  Kendrick  v.  Emmons. 
Weaving  fabric.     Smith  v.  Nichols. 


302  PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 

Wells,  making.  Andrews  v.  Carman ;  Same  v.  Denslow ;  Same 
y.  Speer;    Same  v.  Wright. 

Well-tubes.     Buttrick  v.  Park  ;  David  v.  Park. 

Whips.  Merriam  v.  Drake;  Same  v.  Van  Nest;  Searls  v.  Van 
Nest:  Strong  v.  Noble. 

Wind-wheels.  Continental  Windmill  Co.  v.  Empire  Windmill 
Co. 

Window-screen.     Adjustable  Window  Screen  Co.  v.  Boughton. 

Window  weather-guards.     Wilson  v.  Marlow. 

Winnowing-machine.     Burrall  v.  Jewett ;  Sanders  v.  Logan. 

Wood-bending  machine.  Blanchard  v.  Putnam;  Morris  v.  Bar- 
rett;  Same  v.  Royer. 

Wood-shaping  machine.     Hale  v.  Stimpson. 

Wood-splitting  machine.  Conover  d.  Dohrman ;  Samer.  Mers; 
Same  v.  Rapp ;  Same  v.  Roach;  Johnson  v.  McCuUoch; 
Mers  V.  Conover. 

Wool-making.  Agawam  Co.  v.  Jordan  ;  Jordan  v.  Dobson; 
Same  v.  Wallace. 

Wool-oiling  machine.  Earl  v.  Dexter;  Harwood  f.  MiH  River 
Co. 

Wrenches.  Cornell  v.  Downer  and  Bemis  Brewing  Co.  ;  Same 
V.  Littlejohn;  Schumacher  v.  Cornell. 

Wringer,  clothes.  Bailey  Washing,  &c.  Machine  Co.  v.  Lin- 
coln; Forsyth  v.  Clapp;  Metropolitan  Washing,  &c.  Co.  v. 
Providence  Tool  Co. ;  Metropolitan  Wringing,  &c.  Co.  v. 
Young. 

Writing-fluid.     Stephens  v.  Felt. 


Y. 

Yarn,  parti-coloring.     Smith  v.  Higgins. 


z. 

Zinc.     Wetherell   v.  New  Jersey   Zinc    Co.;  Same  v.  Passaic 

Zinc  Co. 
Zinc-white.     Jones  v.  Osgood. 


PART  ly. 

LIST    OF    DEFENDANTS. 


PART  IV. 
LIST     OF    DEFENDANTS. 


Abbot,  Rogers  v. 
Abbott,  Howe  v. 
Abbotts,  .Jenkins  v. 
Abrams,  Isaac  v. 
Acton,  Bancroft  v. 
Adams,  Child  v. 

Herbert  v. 
Monce  v. 
Wilder  v. 
Adriance,  Sprague  v. 
Aiken,  Gilmore  v. 
Allen,  Goodyear  v. 
Jackson  v. 
Nourse  v. 
Remington  v. 
Smith  V. 
White  V. 
AUis,  Wise  v. 
Almy,  Hartshorn  v. 
American  Bush  Co.,  Cornell  v. 
Am.  Button  Hole,  &c.  Co.,  Chabot  v. 
Parham  r. 
Am.  Gauge  Co.,  U.  S.  Gauge  Co.  t'. 
Am.   Hair   Mfg.   Co.,    Muscaa  Hair 

Mfg.  Co.  V. 
Am.  Tool  &  Machine  Co.,  Am.  H.  & 

L.  Sp.  Co.  V. 
Ames,  Billings  v. 

Amesbury  Nail  Factory,  Odiorne  v. 
Anderson,  Masury  v. 
Androscoggin  Pulp  Co.,  Miller  v. 
Annan,  Binney  v. 
Anness,  Reissner  r. 
Anthes,  United  Nickel  Co.  v. 
Antisdel,  Hawes  v. 


Archer,  Taylor  v. 

Arctic  Oil  Co.,  National  Filter  Oil  Co.r. 

Aronson,  Hoffman  v. 

Asbestos  Felting  Co.,  United  States  & 
F.  Sal.  F.  Co.  V. 

Ashland  Machine  Co.,  Birdsell  v. 

Atlantic    Middlings    Co.,    Am.    Mid- 
dlings Co.  V. 

Atlantic  Works,  Brady  v. 

Atwater,  Gal  pin  v. 
Rich  V. 

Atwood,  Carleton  v. 

Augur,  Dibble  v. 

Aultman,  Saxton  o. 

Austin,  Cahart  v. 

B. 

Bacon,  Appleton  v. 

Peck  V. 
Badger,  Orr  v. 
Bailey,  Collender  v. 

Meyer  r. 

Stanley  Rule,  &c.  Co.  v. 
Bailey   Washing,    &c.    Co.,    Eureka 

Co.  V. 
Bailie,  Ball  v. 
Bain,  Morse  v. 
Baker,  Carter  v. 
Jacobs  V. 
Baker's  Admrs.,  Smith  v. 
Baldwin  Mfg.  Co.,  Whipple  r. 
Ball,  Root  V. 
Ballard,  Gould  v. 
Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.R.,  Knight  r. 
Baltimore  &  Susquehanna  R.K.,  Stimp- 
son  V. 


20 


306 


PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


Bamker,  Parker  v. 

Bankers',  &c.  Telegraph  Co.,  Day  v. 

Barber,  Guidet  v. 

Barclay,  Campbell  v. 

McMillan  v. 
Bard,  Rapp  v. 
Bare,  Moore  v. 
Barnard,  Gibson  v. 

Parker  v. 
Barnes,  Burns  v. 

Hammer  v. 
Barney,  Woodruff  v. 
Barnum,  Leonard  v. 

Wilson  V. 
Barrett,  Morris  v. 
Stearns  v. 
Barry,  Thompson,  &c.  v. 
Barstow  Stove  Co.,  Forbes  v. 
Bartholomae,  Gottfried  v. 
Battell,  Tomlinson  v. 
Batten,  Heilner  v. 
Bayliss,  Mann  ?'. 

Bay  State  Screw  Co.,  Newbury  v. 
Beale,  Pennock  ». 
Beard,  Johnson  v. 
McComb  V. 
Beardsley,  Kirby  v. 
Beckford,  Caliill  v. 
Beecher,  Wilbur  v. 
Beers,  Blanchard  v. 
Beeston,  Pentlarge  v. 
Belknap  Mills,  Crompton  v. 
Bell,  Davis  v. 
Bemis,  Aiken  v. 
Benham,  Ingersoll  v. 
Benjamin,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 
Bennett,  Motte  v. 
Benson,  Gates  v. 
Berger,  Norwalk  Lock  Co.  v. 
Bernard,  Baldwin  v. 
Berry,  Goodyear  v. 
Bertrand,  Calkins  v. 
Betts,  Gibson  v. 

Beverly  Rubber  Co.,  Goodyear  v. 
Bicknell,  Brooks  v. 
Bigler,  Parker  v. 
Billings,  Wheeler  v. 
Binney,  Union  Paper  Bag  Co.  v. 
Bird,  kail  v. 

Harmon  v. 
Birt,  Loudon  v.  • 


Bishop,  Goodyear  v. 
Bixb3',  Sawyer  v. 
Blackmer,  McDonald  v. 
Bladen,  Treadwell  v. 

Watson  V. 
Blake,  Robertson  v. 
Blanchard,  Rows  v. 
Blandy,  Lee  t'. 
Blunt,  Allen  i'. 
Bobo,  Maltby  v. 
Bodfish,  Eastman  v. 
Boggess,  Midkiff  v. 
Bokee,  Carlton  v. 
Boker,  White  v. 
Bonney,  Bell  v. 
Borden,  Sickels  v. 
Boston,  Tyler  v. 

Boston  &  Albany  R.R.,  Lightner  v. 
Boston  Belting  Co.,  Chaffee  v. 

Day  V. 
Boston    Diatite    Co.,    Florence    Mfg. 

Co.  V. 
Boston  Elastic  Fabrics  Co.,  Carew  v. 
Boston   &  Fair  Haven  Iron   Works, 

Child  V. 
Boston   &   Fair  Haven  Iron   Works, 

Montague  v. 
Boston  &  Lowell  R.R.,  Ashcroft  v. 
Boston  &  Providence  R.R.,  Winans  v. 
Boston  Machine  Co.,  Tufts  v. 
Boughton,  Adjustable  Window  Screen 

Co.  t). 
Bourne,  Goodyear  v. 
Boustield,  Clark  v. 
Bowman,  Read  v. 
Boyer,  Butch  v. 
Bracheo,  Doubleday  v. 
Bradford,  Forbush  v. 
Bradley,  Hussey  v. 
Bradley  Mfg.  Co.,  Dorsey,  R.  H.  R. 

Co.  V. 
Braintree  Mfg.  Co.,  Carver  v. 
Bramhill,  Tuck  v. 
Branch,  Curtis  v. 
Brandt,  Hoffheims  v. 
Brannan,  Shelly  v. 
Brant,  Parker  v. 
Braunsdorf,  Potter  v. 
Singer  v. 
Bray,  Kempton  v. 
Breck,  Jackson  v. 


LIST    OF    DEFENDANTS. 


307 


Brewer,  Clum  v. 
Bridgeport  Brass  Co.,  Miller,  v. 
Broadbent,  Middlebrook  v. 
Brockway,  Darst  v. 
Brodie,  McCoinb  v. 
Brooklyn,  Allen  v. 
Bliss  V. 
Palmer  v. 
Brooks,  Lightiier  v. 
Brower,  State  v. 
Brown,  Boyd  v. 

Bridge  v. 

Cahill  V. 

Case  V. 

Davoll  V. 

Haven  v. 

Phelps  V. 

Piper  V. 
Bryan,  McGaw  v. 
Buck,  Roberts  v. 
BuUard,  Byam  v. 
Burden,  Corning  f. 
Burke,  Adams  v. 

Boyden  y. 
Burkhardt,  Powder  Co.  v. 
Burnham,  Jones  v. 
Bum.s,  United  States  v. 
Burr,  McCay  v. 
Burwell,  Orr  v. 

Busch,  Chicago  Fruit  House  Co.  v. 
Bushnell,  Avery  v. 
Bus.sing.  Gilbert  &  B.  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Butler,  Grover  &  B.  S.  M.  Co.  v. 

Vale  V. 
Butterfield,  Gallahue  v. 
Byam,  Brooks  v. 


Caldwell,  Walter  A.  Wood  &  Co.  v. 

Calhoun,  Wooster  v. 

California   Powder   Works,    Atlantic 

Giant  P.  Co.  v. 
Calvert,  Nesmith  v. 
Came,  Collender  v. 
Cammerrer,  Turrell  i'. 
Campbell,  Dobson  v. 
Vance  v. 
Candee,  Day  v. 
Cannon,  Converse  v. 


Carbon  Stove  Co.,  Thatcher  Heating 

Co.  17. 

Card,  Dodge  v. 
Carman,  Andrews  v. 
Carroll,  Anthony  v. 
Carter,  Sargent  v. 
Cartter,  Westlake  v. 
Cary,  Day  v. 

Goodyear  v. 
Celluloid  Harness  Trimming  Co.,  Al- 
bright V. 
Central  Pac.  R.R.,  Vaughan  v. 
Chaffee,  Goodyear  v. 

May  V. 
Chamberlain,  Emigh  v. 

Lyman  Vent.,  &c.  Co.  v. 
Chambers,  Evans  v. 
Champlain  Trans.  Co.,  Sherman  v. 
Chaskel,  New  York  Rubber  Co.  v. 
Cheever,  Woodworth  v. 
Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  R.R.,  Emigh  v. 
Chicago  Mfg.  Co.,  Dane  v. 
Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.R.,  Sayles  r. 
Christian,   Am.   Middlings  Purifving 

Co.  V. 
Christy,  Howard  v. 
Church,  Fisk  v. 
Cincinnati,    &c.    Co.,    Stillwell,    &c. 

Co.  V. 
City  of  Brooklyn,  Allen  v. 
Bliss  V. 
Guidet  V. 
City  of  Elizabeth,  Am.  Nicolson  Pave- 
ment Co.  V. 
City  of  Louisville,  Bigelow  v. 
Clapp,  Forsyth  v. 

Wilson  Packing  Co.  v. 
Clark,  Garretson  v. 

Gong  Bell  Mfg.  Co.  v. 

Smith  V. 
Cleveland,  &c.  Co.,  Henderson  v. 
Cleveland  Rolling  Jlills  Co.,  Wood  v. 
Clipper  Mower,  &c.  Co.,  Wheeler  v. 
Close,  Rich  i". 
Cobb,  Buck  V. 
Coe,  Bates  v. 
Cole,  Hoe  v. 

Warren  v. 
Collins,  Joliffe  v. 

Serrell  r. 

Tavlor  i;. 


308 


PATENT     CASE    INDEX. 


Combstock,  Phillips  v. 

Comey,  Fitz  v. 

Commissioner  of  Patents,  Hull  v. 

Marsh  v. 
Commissioners  of  Hamilton  Co.,  Ja- 
cobs V. 
Congress  Rubber  Co.,  Goodyear  v. 
Conover,  Mers  v. 
Coolidge,  Birdsall  v. 
Cook,  Eames  v. 
Forbush  v. 
Geiger  v. 
Gibson  v. 
Hawes  v. 
Woodworth  v. 
Cooper,  Isaacs  v. 

Renwick  v. 
Shaw  V. 
Cope,  Judson  v. 

Copeland,  Clark  Patent.  &c.  Co.  v. 
Corbin,  Hopkins,  &c.  Mfg.  Co.  v. 

Parker  v. 
Cornell,  Gay  v. 

Schumacher  v. 
Corning,  Burden  v. 
Perry  v. 

Troy  Iron  &  Nail  Factory  c 
Cortlan,  Larabee  v. 
Cory,  Liddle  v. 
Cowing,  Gould's  Mfg.  Co.  v 
Cowperthwait,  Burr  v. 
Craig,  Fisher  v. 

Crane,  Union  P.  Bag  Mac.  Co.  v. 
Cross,  Dennis  v. 
Crowell,  Potter  v. 
Cummings,  Gillespie  v. 

Smith  V. 
Cunningham,  McCully  v. 

Watson  17. 
Curtis,  Holden  v. 

Woodworth  i;. 
Cutter,  Ashcroft  v. 
Read  v. 
Whittemore  v. 


D. 


Dane,  Irwin  v. 
Danforth,  Dyson  v. 
Daniels,  Bell  v. 


Darling,  Kelleher  v. 
Davis,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 
Morse  v. 
Schuessler  v. 
Davis  Sewing  M.  Co.,  Potter  v. 
Day,  Doughty  v. 

Goodyear  v. 

Hartshorn  v. 

Seligman  v. 

Suj-dam  v. 
Dayton,  Jordan  v. 
Dedrick,  Adamson  v. 
Deener,  Cochrane  v. 
De  Groot,  Langdon  v. 
Denig,  Burdell  v. 
Denmead,  Winans  v. 
Denney,  Odiorne  v. 
Dennis,  Edd\-  v. 
Denslow,  Andrews  v. 
Derringer,  Pettibone  v. 
Devel,  Tyler  r. 
Devoe  Mfg.  Co.,  Meissner  v. 
Dewey,  Alden  v. 
Dexter,  Earl  v. 
De  Young,  Keplinger  v. 
Dialogue,  Pennock  v. 
Dickerson,  Page  v. 
Dickey,  Roberts  v. 

Dickinson,  Fuz.  Wadding,  &c.  Co.  v, 
Dinsmore,  Woodward  v. 
Dixon,  Potter  v. 
Dobson,  Jordan  v. 
Dodd,  Cowan  v. 
Dodge,  Eunson  v. 
Marsh  v. 
Russell  V. 
Saxton  V. 
Dodge  &  S.  Mfg.  Co.,  Kirby  v. 
Marsh  v. 
Dohrman,  Conover  v. 
Dolan,  Aiken  v. 
Dorr,  Boyce  v. 
Doughty,  United  States  v. 
Douglass,  Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v. 
Dover  Stamping  Co.,  Munroe  v. 
Downer  &  B.  Brewing  Co.,  Cornell  v. 
Downing,  Smith  v. 
Dows,  Bowker  v. 
Drake,  Jlerriam  v. 
Draper,  Hudson  v. 
Prouty  V. 


LIST    OF    DEFENDANTS. 


309 


Draper,  Weed  «. 

Dubois,  Railroad  Co.  v. 

Du  Brul,  Miller,  &c.  Mfg.  Co.  v. 

Duchesne,  Brown  v. 

Duff,  Spaulding  v. 

l)unbar,  Estabrook  p. 

Goodyear  v. 

Myers  v. 
Duryee,  Burr  v. 

E. 

Eager,  Hock  hoi  zer  v. 

Eagle  Screw  Co.,  Pierson  v. 

Eagle  Works  Mfg.  Co.,  Blake  v. 

Eames,  Godfrey  v. 

Earle,  Metropolitan  W.  M.  Co.  v. 

Eastham,  JIurphy  r. 

East  Hampton  Bell  Co.,  Bevin  v. 

East   Hampton   Kubber  Thread   Co., 

Elastic  Fabric  Co.  v. 
East  Tennessee,  &c.  R.  R.,  Vaughan  v. 
Eaton,  Cansler  t*. 

Evans  v. 

Winans  v. 
Eddy,  Byam  v. 

Dennis  v. 

Ruggles  V. 
Edmonds,  Pitts  v. 
Edwards,  Adams  v. 
Stone  r. 
Woodworth  t*. 
Ege,  Ogle  V. 
Eldridge,  Blanchard  r. 
Elizabeth,  Am.  Nic.  Pav.  Co.  t». 
Elkinton,  Stainthorp  r. 
Elliott.  Smith  v. 

Elm  City  Co.,  Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v. 
Elniira  Nobles  Mfg.  Co.,  De  Witt  r. 
Elsas,  Bantz  v. 
Ely,  Smith  r. 
Emerson,  Hogg  v. 
Emery,  Xusbaum  v. 
Emmett,  Whitney  r. 
Emmons,  Kendrick  r. 
Empire  S.  M.  Co.,  Potter  v. 
Empire  Trans.  Co.,  Williams  v. 
Empire    Windmill    Co.,    Continental 

W.  M.  Co.  V. 
Ennis,  Rogers  v. 


Erie  R.   R.,    Loco.  Eng.  Safety   Tr. 

Co.  V. 
Ernest,  Cook  v. 

McComb  w. 
Esterbrook  Co.,  Morse  Fountain  Pen 

Co.  r. 
Estey,  Burdett  v. 
Evans,  Goodyear  v. 

Sickels  V. 
Everett,  Barry  v. 


Faber,  Reckendorfer  v. 

Falke,  Poppenhusen  v. 

Falls  Co.,  Sickels  v. 

Farr,  Byam  v. 

Farrington,  Peck  v. 

Fassman,  Johnson  v. 

Fay  &  Co.,  Smith  v. 

Felt,  Stevens  v. 

Fenner,  Earth  Close*  Co.  v. 

Ferguson,  Parker  v. 

Ferry,  Page  v. 

Fibre  Disintegrating  Co.,  Am.  Wood 

Paper  Co.  r. 
Field,  Jones  v. 
First  Nat.  Bank,  Helm  v. 
Fisher,  Craig  v. 

Whitely  v. 
Fiske,  Boston  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Brooks  V. 
Mood}'  V. 
Fitzgerald,  Lake  v. 
Flagg,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 
Fletcher,  Rouse  v. 
Fogg,  McDougall  t'. 
Foilen,  Dawson  v. 
Folsom,  Tarr  v. 
Foote,  Silsby  v. 
Ford,  Evarts  v. 
Fowler,  Bennet  v. 
Cragin  v. 
Frame,  Myers  v. 

Peek  V. 
Francestown    Soapstone    Stove    Co., 

Henry  v. 
Frayer,  Smith  v. 
Frost,  Foote  v. 
Kittle  V. 


310 


PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


Fuller,  Potter  v. 

Fulton's  Sons  &  Co.,  Scaife  v. 

G. 

Gaar,  Moffitt  v. 
Gage,  Hawes  v. 
Herring  v. 
Tompkins  v. 
Gammons,  Graham  v. 
Gardiner,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 
Gardner  &  K.  Air  Brake  Co.,  West- 

inghouse  v. 
Garlick,  Halsey  v. 
Garnhart,  Rice  v. 
Garratt,  Siebert  v. 
Garrett,  Robertson  v. 
Garretson,  Ta3dor  v. 
Gas  Consumers'  Assoc,  Herring  v. 
^       Catling,  Newell  v.       ■. 
Gaylor,'Wilder  v. 
Gaylord  Mfg.  Co.,  Bliss  v. 
Gibson,  Barnard  v. 
Gifford,  Gibson  v. 
Gilbert,  Sisson  v. 

Gilbert  &  Barker  Mfg.  Co.,  Clough  v. 
Gill,  Atterbury  v. 
Buck  V. 
Wells  V. 
Gilman,  Wonson  v. 
Gilpin,  Bloomer  v. 
Glendale  El.  Fab.  Co.,  Smith  v. 
GlenFalls,  &c.Co.,  Am.Wood  P.  Co.  v. 
Click,  Wright  V. 
Gloucester  Mfg.  Co.,  Sickels  v. 
Goddard,  Stein  v. 
Godfrey,  Fames  v. 
Goetinger,  Geier  v. 
Golay,  Gilmore  v. 
Goode,  Blakenay  v. 
Goodrich,  Fuller  v. 
Goodwin,  Ryan  v. 
Goodyear,  Atlantic  Giant  P.  Co.  v. 

Bourne  v. 

Mc Barney  v. 

Prov.  Rubber  Co.  v. 
Groodyear  D.  V.  Co.,  Celluloid  Mfg. 

Co.  «. 
(Joodyear  D.  V.  Co.,  Gardner  v. 
Smith  V. 
Sailings  v. 


Goodvear   Rubber  Co.,   Gutta-percha 

Co."  V. 
Gould,  H.  W.,  Ex  parte. 
Gould,  Rees  v. 

Washburn  v. 
Govver,  Ex  parte. 
Graham,  Mason  v. 
Grand  Street  &  N.  R.R.,  Mowry  v. 
Graves,  Whiting  i:. 
Gray,  Davis  v. 

Great  Western  Q.  M.  Co.,  Knox  v. 
Greeley,  Ex  parte. 
Green,  Turner  v. 
Greenwald,  Jenkins  v. 
Greenwood,  Hotchkiss  v. 
Greenwood  Cemetery,  Blake  v. 
Gregory,  Burr  v. 

Farrington  v. 
Griffeth,  Blandy  v. 

Collender  v. 

Decker  v. 
Griffin,  Greaton  v. 
Griggs,  Cox  V. 
Grosvenor,  Gear  v. 
Grote,  Decker  v. 
Grover  &  Baker  S.  M.  Co.,  Florence 

S.  M.  Co.  V. 
Gugenheim,  Barry  v. 

Penn.  Salt  Co.  v. 
Guild.  Brown  v. 
Sawin  v. 
Gunther,  Schillinger  v. 


H. 


Hagaman,  Wells  v. 
Hagerstown  Agric-  Mfg.    Co.,    Bird- 
sell  V. 
Haight,  Bliss  v. 

Thompson  v. 
Hall,  Barrett  v. 

Brown  v. 

Dickinson  v. 

Pitts  V. 

Sarven  v. 

Woodworth  V. 
Hallock,  Parker  v. 
Ilalsted,  Stover  v. 
Hamilton.  Ives  v. 

Hamilton  Mfg.  Co.,  Badische  Anilin, 
&c.  Co.  V. 


LIST    OF    DEFENDANTS. 


311 


Hammond,  King  v. 
Saxe  V. 
Hank's  Case. 
Hank'nl)eck,  Armstrong  v. 
Hansel,  Groff  v. 
Hapgood.  Sayles  v. 
Harbert,  National  Hay  Rake  Co.  v. 
Harlow,  Earl  i'. 
Harnden,  Roberts  v. 
Harris,  Gibson  v. 
Hartell,  Tiigliman  v. 
Hartford   Carpet  Co.,    Lowell   Mfg. 

Co.  V. 
Hartshorn,  Bray  v. 
Day  V. 
Harwood,  Mahn  v. 
Haskell,  Mabie  i'. 
Hatch,  Am.  Nicolson  Pav.  Co.  v. 
HatGeld,  Domestic  S.  M.  Co.  v. 

Parker  v. 
Haven,  U.  S.  &  F.  Sal.  F.  Co.  v. 
Hawk,  Parker  v. 
Hawkins,  La  Baw  v. 

Olcott  V. 
Hawley,  Mitchell  v. 
Haworth,  Parker  v. 
Hawxhurst.  Walker  ?'. 
Hayden,  Suflfulk  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Haynes,  Blanchard  v. 

Doherty  v. 
Hays,  Bellas  v. 
Hay^vard,  Chaffee  v. 

Day  V. 
Head,  Stevens  v. 
Heald,  Rice  v. 

Hecker,  Riimford  Ch.  "Works  v. 
Heft,  Am.  Wood  Paper  Co.  v. 
Helms,  Sweetzer  v. 
Henderickx,  Comely  v. 
Henrici,  Shoup  v. 
Henry,  Hovey  v. 
Herbert,  Foss  v. 
Hermance,  Buck  v. 
Herron,  Osborn  v. 
Hettick,  Evans  v. 
Hickey,  Putnam  v. 
Wright  V. 
Hicks,  Bussey  v. 
Flood  V. 
Williams  v. 
Higgins,  Badische  Anilin,  &c.  Co.  v. 


Higgins,  Smith  v. 

Web.'iter  Loom  Co.  v. 
Hill,  Robertson  v. 
Hills,  Goodyear  v. 
Hinkley,  Brown  v. 
Hitchcock,  Tremaine  v. 
Kite,  McKernan  v. 
Hodge,  Robinson  v. 
Hodges,  .Jones  v. 
Hoelier,  Hoeltge  v. 
Hogg,  Am.  Saddle  Co.  v. 

?3merson  v. 
Holdredge,  Manvel  v. 
Holenshade,  Schwarzel  v. 
Holland,  Potter  v. 
Hoi  ley,  Aultman  v. 
Holliday,  Rheem  v. 
Hollings,  Ashcroft  v. 
Holmes,  Gear  v. 

AVallace  v. 

Wayne  v. 
Hoover,  Hunt  v. 
Houghton,  Hill  v. 
Housinger,  Goodyear  v. 
Howard,  Ames  v. 

Cook  V. 

Rubber  Tip,  &c.  Co.  v. 

Spring  V. 
Howe,  Gardiner  v. 

Storrs  V. 
Howland,  Buchanan  v. 
Hubbard,  Black  v. 
Hudson,  Draper  v. 
Hudson  River  R.R.,  Hodge  v. 
Hull,  Ayling  v. 
Hullihen,  Goodyear  v. 
Hulme,  Parker  v. 
Hul.shizer,  Gray  v. 
Humiston,  Staintborp  v. 
Hunt,  Bedford  v. 
Hollidap. 
Kernodle  v. 
Hunter,  Allen  v. 
Foy  V. 
Young  V. 
Huntingdon,  Teese  v. 
Huntington,  Morris  v. 
Himtly,  Cross  v. 
Hurd  Paper  Bag  Co.,  Arkell  v. 
Hurley,  Rose  v. 
Hutchinson,  Whipple  v. 


312 


PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


Hyde,  Carver  v. 

Tyler  v. 
Hyndman,  Eoots  r. 


111.  Cent.  R.R.,  see  Cawood  Patent 

Turrill  v. 
m.  Mfg.  Co.,  Dane  v. 
Inihauser,  Buerk  v. 
Imlay,  Grejijerson  v. 
Indiana  &  St.  L.  R.R.,  Dunham  v. 
Ireland,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 
Iron  Mountain  R.R.,  Hodge  v. 
Ives,  Bruff  v. 

Gold  V. 

Hamilton  v. 

Miller's  Falls  Co.  v. 


Jacobs,  Blancliard  Gunstock  Co.  v. 

Thompson  v. 
Jacques,  Wells  v. 
Jagger,  ISIany  v. 
James,  Gray  v. 
Jameson,  Pitts  v. 
Janes,  Wilson  v. 
Jeffrej',  McClure  r. 
Jenkins,  Am.  Nicolson  Pav.  Co.  v. 
Jennings,  Dalton  v. 
Jewett,  Burrall  v. 
Johnson,  Jenkins  v. 
Nevins  v. 
Yuengling  v. 
Johnston  Harvester  Co.,  Ketchum,  Sec. 

Co.  w. 
Joliet  Mfg.  Co  ,  Adams  v. 
Jones,  Adams  v. 

Brammer  v. 

Bullock  P.  P.  Co.  V. 

Hall  V. 

Livingston  v. 

Morehead  v. 

Sewall  V. 
Jordan,  Agawam  Co.  v. 

Evans  v. 
Judd,  Middletown  Tool  Co.  v. 
Judson,  Snow  v. 


K. 

KanowTS,  Reutgen  v. 
Kear,  Hatten  v. 
Keith,  United  Nickel  Co.  v. 
Kelly,  Lippincott  v. 

Price  V. 
Kelsey,  Hicks  v. 
Kennedy,  Cole  v. 
Kennedy  Mfg.  Co.,  Clark  v. 
Kentucky,  Patterson  v. 
Kenyon,  Elkins  v. 
Kershaw,  North  v. 
Keystone  Bridge  Co.,  Reeves  v. 
Kimball,  Lightner  v. 
King,  Werner  v. 
Kingsbury,  Hamilton  v. 
Kingsland,  McClurg  v. 
Kinsman,  Parkhurst  v. 
Kirby,  Whitely  v. 
Kissling,  Murphy  v. 
Kitson,  Whitehead  v. 
Kleinknecht,  Wicke  v.  . 
Konip,  Wilcox  v. 
Kremer,  Evans  v. 

L. 

Ladd,  Swain  Turbine  Co.  v. 

Lalor,  Lyman  Vent.,  &c.  Co.  v. 

Lambie,  Munde  v. 

Lane,  American  Mfg.  Co.  v. 

Lapoui'aille,  Crosby  v. 

l.arned,  Sargent  v. 

Latchem,  Mullikin  v. 

Lathrop,  Russell  v. 

Lauer,  Rumford  Ch.  Works  i'. 

Lawrence  Felting  Co.,  U.  S.  &  F.  Sal. 

F.  Co.  V. 
Lehigh  Zinc  Co.,  Burrows  v. 
Leland,  Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  v. 
Leonard,  Williams  v. 
Leroy,  Tatham  v. 
Leutzinger,  Vetter  v. 
Lewis,  Lowell  v. 

Merchant  v. 
Lincoln,  Bailey  AVashing,  &c.  Co.  v. 
Lindfay,  Foster  v. 
Lippincott,  Rich  v. 
Lippmau,  Egbert  v. 


LIST    OP    DEFENDANTS. 


313 


Lippman,  Young  v. 

Littell,  Kerosene  Lamp  Heater  Co.  v. 

Little,  Park  r. 

Littlctield,  Orr  v. 

Littlejolin,  Cornell  v. 

Lobdell,  Burleigh  R.  D.  Co.  r. 

Lockwood,  Lockwood  r. 

Morcn'  V. 

Kithardson  v. 
Logan,  Sanders  v. 
Lombard,  Am.  Whip  Co.  v. 
Loriug,  Tathain  v. 
Louisville,  Bigelow  v. 
Louisville  Cement  Co.,  King  ». 
Lounsbury,  Union  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Lovejoy,  Shaw  &  Wilcox  Co.  v. 
Lowbev,  Tatham  v. 
Lowell  Mfg.  Co.,  Morris  v. 
Loweree,  Knox  v. 
Lunsford,  Goodyear  v. 
Luther,  Heinrich  v. 


M. 

Mack,  Potter  v. 

Mad  River  R.R.,  Simpson  v. 

Magnetic   Tel.    Co.,   Western     T^nion 

Tel.  Co.  V. 
Magnin,  Jurgenson  t". 
Mallory,  Russell  &  E.  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Manchester  Print  Works,  Aiken  v. 
Manhattan  Elevator,  &c.  Co.,  Sykes  v. 
Manufacturing  Co.,  Blank  v. 
Manufacturing  Co.,  Russell  &  E.  Mfg. 

Co.  V. 
Manj',  McCormick  v. 
Sizer  v. 
Woolcocks  f. 
Marden,  Dunbar  v. 
Marlow,  Wilson  v. 
Marsh,  Dorsey  R.  H.  R.  Co.  r. 

Moore  v. 

Seymour  v. 
Marshall,  Smith  v. 
Mason,  Ba'ker  v. 

Dean  v. 

Graham  v. 

Rowley  v. 
Mass.  Arms  Co.,  Colt  v. 
Mast,  Ingels  v. 


Matthews,  Bigclow  v. 
Goodyear  v. 
Holbrook  v. 
Mattheys,  Cooper  v. 
Matthieson,  Union  Sugar  Ref.  v. 
Maudelbaum,  King  v. 
Mayhew,  Dudley  v. 
Mayor  of  New  York,  Ransom  v. 
M'Alpin,  Bcyd  v. 
McBarney,  Goodyear  v. 
McCabe,  Johnson  v. 
McClelland,  Smith  v. 
McCone,  Coolidge  v. 
McConnick,  Davis  v. 

Hussey  v. 

Seymour  v. 

Wheeler  v. 

Wilder  v. 
McCulloch,  Bell  v. 

Johnson  v. 

Pickering  v. 
McDonald,  Birdsell  v. 
McDowell,  Lorillard,  &c.  v. 
McKay,  El  v  v. 
McLanahan,  Nellis  v. 
McMillan,  Wrights. 
McMurray,  Jones  v. 
McNeal,  Howes  v. 
McQuewan,  Bloomer  v. 
Mellor,  Francis  v. 
Mendelsohn,  Thompson  v. 
Mercer,  Smith  v. 
Meredith,  McDowell  v. 
Merriam,  Kittle  v. 
Merrill,  Rufus  S. 
Merrill,  Jones  v. 

Orr  V. 
Merrimack  Felting  Co.,  U.   S.  &  F. 

Sal.  F.  Co.  t'. 
Merrimack  Hat  Co.,  Sanford  v. 
Mers,  Conover  v. 
Messer,  Sanford  v. 
Messinger,  Carter  v. 
Messmore,  Trader  t?. 
Metro.  R.R.,  Rubber  Step  Co.  v. 
Mich.  Southern,  &c.  R.R.,  Turrill  r. 
Wood  V. 
Michigan   Stove   Co.,    Detroit    Stove 

Works  V. 
Middlesex  Co.,  Whipple  v.       " 
Millinger,  Bloomer  i". 


814 


PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


Miller,  Read  r. 

Sangster  v. 

Waterbury  Brass  Co.  v. 
Mill  River,  &c.  Co.,  Harwood  v. 
Mitchell,  Cowan  v. 
Hawley  v. 
Sickels  V. 
Tilghman  v. 
Mixter,  Gorham  v. 
Monson,  &c.  Co.,  Ely  v. 
Montague  v.  Boston  &  F.  Iron  Works  v. 
Moon,  Piper  v. 
Moore,  Foster  v. 
Judson  V. 

Plastic  Slate  Roofing  Co.  v. 
Morehead,  Evans  v. 
Jones  V. 
Morehouse,  Brooks  v. 
Morey,  Case  v. 
Morgan,  Barnes  v. 
Davy  V. 
Oliver  v. 
Morris,  United  States  v. 
Morrison,  West  v. 

Woodward  v. 
Morse,  Bain  v. 

Morse  Twist  Drill  Co.  v. 
Oreilly  v. 
Tilghman  v. 
Morton,  Howe  v. 
Moulton,  Bachelder  v. 
Mowbray,  Atlantic  Giant  Powd.  Co.  v. 
Mowrj',  Whitney  v. 
Moyer,  Dixon  v. 
Mullee,  Goodyear  v. 
Muller,  Potter  v. 
Munson,  Black  v. 

Tillotson  V. 
Murphy,  Union  Paper  Bag  Mac.  Co.  v. 
Murry,  Ball  v. 
Murtha,  Knox  v. 
Musgrove,  Ingersoll  v. 
Myers,  Cutting  v. 
Dunbar  v. 
Pennsvlvania  Salt  Co.  v. 


N. 

Nash,  Weston  v. 

National  Bauk  Note  Co..  Tappan  v. 


National  Rubber  Co.,  Cohn  v. 

National  Shoe  Tip  Pr.  Co.,  Am.  Shoe 
Tip,  &c.  Co.  V. 

Negus,  Bliss  v. 

Nelson,  Dalton  v. 
Herring  v. 

Newark  India-rubber  Co.,  Day  v. 

New  BruQswick   Carpet  Co.,    Web- 
ster V. 

Newell,  Gatling  v. 
Nichols  V. 
Union  Paper  B.  M.  Co.  v. 

New  EnglaTid  Car  Spring  Co.,  Day  v. 

Newhall,  Pacific  Iron  Works  v. 

New  Jersey  Centr.  R.R.,  Goodyear  v. 

New  Jersey  Zinc  Co.,  Wetherill  v. 

Newton,  Cammeyer  v. 
Howe  V. 

New  York,  Ransom  v. 

New  York  Belting  Co.,  Decker  v. 

New  York  &  B.  Brass  Co.,  Waterbury 
Brass  Co.  v. 

New  York  &  Erie  R.R.,  Winans  v. 

New  York  Ej'e  Infirmarj',  Morton  v. 

New   York  Gutta-Percha  Co.,   Good- 
year V. 

New  York  Gutta-Percha  Co.,  Poppen- 
husen  v. 

New  York  &  Harlem  R.R  ,  Hodge  ». 
AViuans  v. 

Nichols,  Smith  v. 

Nicolson  Pavement  Co.,  City  of  Eliza- 
beth V. 

Nicolson  Pavement  Co.,  Jenkins  v. 

Nixon,  Union  Paper  Bag  Mac.  Co.  P. 

Noble,  Strong  v. 

Nock   Philp  V. 

Norcross,  Brooks  v. 

Norfolk,  Peabody  v. 

Norwich  &  W.  R.R.,  Imlay  v. 

North,  Yale,  &c.  Co.  v. 

North  Missouri  R.R.,  Hodge  V. 

Nourse,  Gale  v. 

Noyes,  Jones  v. 

Richardson  v. 

Nute,  Howes  v. 

o. 

Oakville  Co.,  Am.  Pin  Co.  v. 
Ocean  Mills,  Pearl  v. 


LIST    OF    DEFENDANTS. 


315 


O'Connor,  Smith  v. 

Odiorne,  Troy  I.  &  N.  Fact.  v. 

Ogden,  ColKii  v. 

Ilaselden  v. 
Oliver,  Hotcliiviss  v. 
Ophir  Silver,  &c.  Co.,  Brodie  v. 
Oreilly,  Morse  v. 
Organ  Co.,  Hammond  v. 
Orr,  Beane  v. 

Rathbone  v. 
Orvis,  Hall  v. 
Osborne,  Seymour  v. 
Osgood,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 

Jones  V. 
Ostrander.  Jones  v. 


Packard,  Spring  v. 
Page,  Earl  v. 

Phillips  i»- 
Spaulding  v. 
Paine,  Vannini  v. 
Palmer,  Davis  v. 
Guidet  V. 
Lester  v. 
Sone  V. 
Park,  Buttrick  v- 

David  V. 
Park,  &c.  Co.,  Klein  v- 
Parker,  Wondcock  v. 
Parker  &  W.  Mfg.  Co.,  nopkin.s,  &c. 

Mfg.  Co.  V. 
Parkhurst,  Kinsman  v. 
Parks,  Booth  v. 
Parrott,  Treadwcll  v. 
Pa.ssaic  Zinc  Co.,  Wetherill  v. 
Patton,  Sloat  v. 
Smith  V. 
Patrick,  Clough  v. 
Pearce,  Eickemeyer  Co.  v. 
Mulford  V. 
Nichols  V. 
Smith  I'. 
Peck,  First  National  Bank  v. 
Knowles  v. 
State  V- 
Zane  v. 
Peck,  Stow,  &  W.  Co.,  Grosjean  v. 
Peddie,  Eunson  v. 
Peebles,  Collins  v. 


<  Pendleton,  Van  Hook  v. 
Pennell,  Kimer  v. 

Penninian,  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Peimock.  J.  L. 
Penn.    li.li.,    Loc.    Eng.   Safety   Tr. 

Co.  V. 
Perego,  Birdsell  v. 
Perry,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 

Littlelield  v. 
Peterson,  Wonson  v. 
Petry,  Frink  v. 
Phelps,  Goodyear  v. 

India-rubber  Comb  Co.  t;. 
Teese  v. 
Philadelphia  Fire  Ex.  Co.,  Northwest 

Fire  Ex.  Co.  v. 
Philadelphia  &  Wilmington  R.R.,  Du- 
bois V. 
Phillips,  Pickering  v. 
I'hcenix   Iron   Co.,   Keystone  Bridge 

Co.  V. 
Pierpont,  Stevens  v. 
Piper,  Brown  v. 
Place,  Russell  v. 
Platts,  I'2x  parte. 
Pond,  Renwick  v. 
Stimpson  v. 
Porter,  Vaughan  v. 
Potomska  Mills,  Draper  v. 
Potter,  Pike  v. 
Pratt,  Ball  v. 

Preterre,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 
Prime,  Brandon  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Prior,  Smith  v. 
Pritchard,  Meyer  v. 

Stevens  v. 
Providence  Rubber  Co.,  Goodyear  v. 
Providence  Tool  Co.,  Henr3-  v. 

Metropolitan  W. 
M.  Co.  V. 
Providence  &  W.  R.R.,  Pike  v. 
Puitz  &  Walkley  Co.,  Union  Paper 

Bag  Co.  V. 
Putnam,  Blanchard  v. 

Harlow  v. 
Putney,  Buss  v. 


Q. 


Quinlan,  Fry  v. 
Quintard,  Beaton  v. 


316 


PATENT    CASE     INDEX. 


Quintard,  Thomas  v. 
Webb  V. 


R. 


Rahmer,  Mallory  v. 
Railroad  Co.,  Dubois  v. 

Vaughan  v. 
Railroads,  Stimpson  v. 

Wilton  V. 
Ransom,  City  of  New  York  v. 
Rapp,  Conover  v. 
Rawsou,  Blake  v. 
Raymond,  Grant  v. 

Nye  V. 
Raynolds,  De  Florez  v. 
Redfield,  Case  v. 

Sullivan  v. 
Redington,  Wintermute  v. 
Reed,  Reed  v. 

Van  Ostrand  v. 
Reed  Torpedo  Co.,  Roberts  v. 
Rees,  Gould  i'. 
Reeves,  Blanchard  v. 

Detmnld  v. 
Remhof.  Parker  v. 
Remington,    Berdan  Fire  Arms  Mfg 

Co.  V. 
Remington,  Hawks  v. 
Rheem,  Holliday  v. 
Rice,  Carr  v. 
Rich,  Dyer  v. 
Richards,  Edwards  v. 
Richardson,  Foss  v. 

Wing  V. 
Richey.  Eppinger  v. 
Ricketts,  Kic'li  v. 
Rifle  Co.,  Smith  v. 
Rikenian,  Finch  v. 
Ring,  Calioon  v. 
Roach,  Conover  v. 

Hathaway  v. 
Robertson,  Blake  v. 

Eilithorp  V. 
Robinson,  Ex  parte. 
Robinson,  Evans  v. 
Roemer,  Crouch  v. 
Rogers,  French  v. 

Stimpson  v. 
Woodworth  v. 


Rollstone  Machine  Works,  Whiting  v. 

Rome,  Watertown,    &c.    R.R.,    Wil- 
liams V. 

Root,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 
Johnson  i'. 

Roots,  Hyndman  v. 

Roraback,  Lindsay  v. 

Roter,  Roberts  v. 

Rousseau,  Wilson  v. 

Rowley,  Houghton  v. 
JNIason  v. 

Royer,  IMorris  v. 

Rubber  Coated  Harness  Tr.  Co.,  Well- 
ing V. 

Rubber  Step,  &c.  Co.,  Brown  v. 

Rubber  Thread  Co.,  Elastic  Fab.  Co.  v. 

Rubber  Tip,  &c.  Co.,  Hove}'  v. 

Ruggles,  Prouty  v. 

Rumford  Ch.  Works,  Att'y-Gen.  v. 

Rumsej',  Burrall  v. 
Cowing  V. 

Russell,  Klein  v. 

Rust,  Goodyear  v. 

Ryer,  Roberts  v. 


Sabin,  Chase  v. 

St.  Louis  Wire  Goods  Co.,  Adams  & 

Westlake  I\Ifg.  Co.  v. 
Sanderson.  U.  S.  Annunc.  Co.  v. 
Sandford,  Wilson  v. 
Sandusky  Seat  Co.,  Comstock  v. 
Sargeant  &  Co.,  Hart,  &c.  Co.  v. 
Sargent.  Rogers  v. 
Sargent  &  Co.,  Stanley  Works  v. 
Sawyer,  Bartholomew  v. 

Earl  V. 
Sayles,  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.R.  v. 

Hendrie  v. 

Marsh  v. 
Schemerhorn,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 
Schenck,  Potter  v. 

Schenectady   &  Troy  R.R.,  Winans  v. 
Schmidt,  Poillon  v. 
Schotield,  Densmore  v. 
Schoonmakcr,  Wing  v. 
Schultz,  Baldwin  v. 
Schuyler,  Roberts  v. 
Schuylkill  Bank,  Kneaas  v. 


LIST    OF     DEFENDANTS. 


317 


Scott,  Clark  v. 
Delano  v. 
Keedy  v. 
Seagrave,  Sargent  v. 
Sears,  Parker  v. 
Seconibe  Mfg.  Co.,  Robertson  v 
Seibert,  Garratt  v. 
Selby,  Brown  v. 
Selden,  Smith  v. 
Semple,  Vogler  v. 
Serrell,  Guyon  v. 
Hitter  v. 
Sewall,  Junes  v. 
Seymour,  JIarsh  v. 

McCormick  v. 
Shannon,  Brown  v. 
Shantz,  Stuart  v. 
Shawk,  Latta  v. 
Shelburne,  Morris  v. 
Sheldon,  Steam  Cutter  Co.  v. 
Sheriffs,  Scaife  v. 
Sherman,  Doubleday  v. 

AVilson  V. 

Woodworth  v. 
Slioe  Machinery  Mfg.  Co.,  Haskell  r. 
Shorey,  Hartshorn  v. 
Short,  Weljster  Loom  Co.  v. 
Sibley,  Baldwin  v. 
Sibly,  Dibble  v. 
Sickles,  Packet  Co.  v. 
Sidenberg,  Woostor  v. 
Silliman,  Batten  v. 
Silsbee,  Melius  v. 
Silsby,  Foote  v. 
Silver,  Street  v. 
Silverbrandt,  Decker  v. 
Silver  Wire,  &c.  Co.,  West  v. 
Sinnn,  F^merson  v. 
Simon,  Roemer  v. 
Simons,  American  Cotton  Tie  Co.  v- 

Hamilton  v. 
Simpson,  Hoe  v. 

Wheeler  v. 

Wilson  V. 
Singer,  Vose  v. 

Singe.  S.  M.  Co.,  Florence  S.  M.  Co.  v. 
Sizer,  JIaiiy  v. 
Skates,  Matthews  v. 
Sladdin,  Emmons  v. 
Slemmer's  Appeal. 
Sloat,  Grover  &  B.  S.  M.  Co.  v. 


Small,  Holbrook  v. 
Smallwood,  Bean  v. 
Smith,  Chambers  v. 
Clark  V. 
Craig  V. 
Ferree  v. 

Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 
Hardesty  v. 
Lane  v. 
Smithpeter,  Wright  v. 
Spaeth,  Turrell  v. 
Spafford,  Wilkins  v. 
Spaulding,  Perrigo  v. 
Tucker  v. 
Spear,  Andrews  v. 
Speer,  Crouch  v. 

Hall  V. 
Spence,  Kidd  v. 
Sperry,  Blake  v. 
Sprague,  Allen  v. 

Blanchard  v. 
Stone  V. 
Squire,  .John  L.,  Ex  parte. 
Staats,  Thompson  v. 
Stafford,  Blake  v. 

Conklin  v. 
Goff  V. 
Stearns,  Wilder  v. 
Stellman,  Day  v. 
Stevens,  Head  v. 
Hovey  v. 
Potter  V. 
Wicks  V. 
Stiefcl,  Hoffman  r. 
Stiles,  Parker  v. 
Stimpson,  Hale  v. 

Phila.  &  Tr.  R.R.  v. 
Woodman  v. 
Stocking,  Bierce  v. 
Stockstill,  Serviss  v. 
StoUy,  Bloomer  v. 
Brooks  V. 
Wilson  V. 
Stone,  Black  v. 

Woodworth  v. 
Wyeth  V. 
Stowe,  Barker  v. 
Straus,  Barnes  v. 
Strong,  Higgiiis  v. 
Suffolk  Mfg.  Co.,  Hayden  v. 
Sullivan  Co.,  Am.  Dia.  R.  B.  Co.  v. 


318 


PATENT    CASE    INDEX. 


Sulsor,  Hays  v. 
Swayne,  Whitely  v. 
Sweet,  Scott  v. 
Swett,  Hawks  v. 

RIarston  «. 
Swift,  Myers  v. 


Taber,  Moody  v. 
Taggert,  Batten  v. 
Tak'ott,  McCormick  v. 
Tapley,  Snow  v. 
Tatham,  Leroy  v. 
Taylor,  Snow  v. 

Wooster  v. 
Thacher,  United  States  v. 
Thayer,  Barclay  v. 

Potter  V. 
Thomas,  Moore  v. 

Penn.  Salt  Co.  v. 
Thompson,  England  v. 

Waterman  v. 
Thome,  Black  v. 
Thuermer,  Hill  v. 
Tiemann,  Masiiry  v. 
Tileston,  Sickels  v. 
Tilghman,  Mitchell  v. 
Tirrell,  Gilbert  &  B.  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Toby,  Goodyear  v. 
Todd,  Bicknell  v. 
Tool  Co.,  Metro.  W.  M.  Co.  v. 
Torre}',  Tracy  v. 
Towie,  Cleveland  v. 
Townsend,  Atlantic  Giant  P.  Co.  v. 
Tracy,  Smith  v. 
Tremaine,  Hitchcock  v. 
Trimble,  Railroad  Co.  v. 
Tripp,  Hartshorn  v. 
Tucker,  Spaulding  v. 
Tucker  Mfg.  Co.,  Tucker  v. 
Tuel,  Tyler  v. 
Tufts,  Blaisdell  v. 
Turner,  Belding  v. 

Ingei  ;oll  v. 

Wilson  V. 
Turrill,  Chicago  &  Alton  R.R.  v. 

Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  R.R.  v. 

III.  Cent.  R.R.  v. 

Mich.  S.  &  N.  Ind.  R.R.  v. 

Pittsburgh,  Ft.  W.  &c.  R.R.  v. 


Twogood,  Hawes  v. 
Twomey,  Hiatt  v. 
Tyng,  McMahon  v. 

u. 

Underbill,  Wood  v. 

Underwood,  Howe  v. 

Union  Car  Spring  Co.,  Nat.   Spring 
Co.  V. 

Union  City,  Holly  v. 

Union  Co.,  Singer  Co.  v. 

Union  India  Rubber  Co.,  Day  v. 

Goodyear  v. 

Union  Iron  Works,  Wood  v. 

Union  Paper  Collar  Co.,  Merserole  v. 

United  Power  Press  Co.,  Boomer  v. 

United  States,  Hubbell  v. 
Pitcher  v. 

United  States  Corset  Co.,  Carstaedt  v. 
Cohn  V. 

United  States  &  F.   Sal.  F.  Co.,  As- 
bestos Felting  Co.  v. 

United  States  Met.  Cart.  Co.,  Union 
Met.  Cart.  Co.  v. 

United  States  Disintegrating  Ore  Co., 
Gold  &  Silver  Ore,  &c.  Co.  v. 

United  States  Patent  Button,  &c.  Co., 
Piatt  V. 

Upton,  Milligan  &  H.  Glue  Co.  v. 

V. 

Valentine,  Buerk  v. 

Van  Antwerp,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 

Van  Deusen,  Union  P.  Collar  Co.  v. 

Van  Dresar,  Gibson  v. 

Van  Hagen,  Sturges  v. 

Van  Ingen,  Livingston  v. 

Van  Kirk,  Jones  v. 

Van  Nest,  Merriam  v. 

Searls  j;. 
Van  Wormer,  Hailes  v. 
Vice,  Rumford  Ch.  Works  v. 


w. 


Wager,  Bussey  v. 
Wait,  Goodyear  v. 


LIST    OF    DEFENDANTS. 


319 


Wales,  Thayer  v. 
Walker,  Chase  v. 
Jenkins  v. 

New  York  Wire  Rail  Co.  t". 
Wallace,  Jordan  v. 

Waterman  v. 
Walmesley,  Singer  v. 
Walworth,  Ashcroft  v. 
Walworth  Mfg.  Co.,  Gilbert  &B.  Mfg. 

Co.  V. 
Ward,  Roberts  v. 
Wardwell,  Sands  v. 
Warner,  Blanchard  Gunstock,  &c.  v. 
Warren,  Wing  v. 
Wa.shburne,  Hawes  v. 
Washburn,  Needham  ». 
Water  Commissioners,  Farrlngton  v. 
Waters,  Pelton  v. 
Webb,  Tarr  v. 
Weed,  Woodworth  v. 
Weeks,  Thomas  v. 
Weir  Plow  Co.,  Turnbull  v. 
Weiss,  Evans  v. 

Welling,  Rubber  Coated  Har.  Tr.  Co.  v. 
Wells,  Black  v. 

Gill  V. 

Wood  V. 
Wemple,  Pitts  v. 
Wentworth,  Chipman  v. 

Fales  t". 
Werk,  Tilghman  v. 
Werner,  King  v. 

Kursheedt  v. 
Wesson,  Chase  v. 
West,  Doughty  v. 
West,  &c.  Co.,  Doughty  v. 
West,  Newell  v. 
West  Chester  R.R.,  Stimpson  v. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  Colgate  v. 
Wetherbee,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 

Putniim  V. 
Wethered,  Bishchoff  f. 
Wheeler  &  W.  Mfg.  Co.,  Corliss  v. 
Whipple,  Stanley  v. 
Whisen,  Swift  i'. 
Whitcomb,  Hill  v. 
White,  Crittenden  v. 
Mallory  v. 
Try  on  v. 

.  Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  r. 
Weston  V. 


Whitely,  Commissioner  of  Patents  v. 

Hussey  v. 
Whitman,  Pitts  v. 
Wliitney,  Blanchard  v. 

Consol.  F.  J.  Co.  V. 
Mowr}'  V. 
Potter  V. 
Whitney    Arms     Co.,    U.     S.    Rifle 

Co.    V. 
Whittemore,  Brown  v. 
Wiester,  Jeffries  v. 
Wilcox,  Woodbury  v. 
Wilder,  Gavlor  v. 
Wiles,  HaH'c. 

Willard  Improved  Barrel  Co.,  Green  v. 
WilUams,  Grover  &  B.  S.  M.  Co.  v. 
Howe  V. 
Wood  V. 
Willimantic  Linen  Co.,  Johnson  v. 
Willis,  Goodyear  D.  V.  Co.  v. 
Wilson,  Pierce  v. 
Potter  V. 
Simpson  v. 
Woodworth  v. 
Wright  V. 
Winans,  York  &  Marj'land  R.R.  v. 
Wingerter,  Goodyear  v. 
Winkley,  Odiorne  v. 
Winslow,    Troy    Iron    &    Nail    Fac- 
tor}' V. 
Winsor,  Kendall  v. 
Winter,  Wayne  v. 
Withington,  Ball  v. 
Wolfinger,  Ross  v. 
W^ood,  Ex  parte. 
Ormsbee  v. 
Taylor  v. 
Wooden,  Peterson  v. 
Woodman,  Stimpson  v. 
Wood  Paper  Patent. 
Woodruff,  Sargent  ilfg.  Co.  v. 

Smith  V. 
Woodworth,  Gibson  v. 

Livingston  v. 
Wooldredge,  Howe  i'. 
Wooster,  Elm  City  Co.  v. 

McKay  v. 
Woven  Tape  Skirt  Co.,  In  re. 
Wright,  Andrews  v. 
Brown  v. 
Consolidated  F.  J.  Co.  v. 


320 


PATENT     CASE    INDEX. 


;W right,  Dayton  v. 
Wyckog,  Clan  Kanald  v. 

Y. 

Yates,  Wells  v. 
Yentzer,  Fuller  v. 


Yeomans,  Merrill  v. 
Yerrington,  Putnam  v. 
Young,  Colt  V. 

Hess  V. 

House  V. 

Metropolitan  W.  M.  Co.  v. 
Youngs,  Sickels  v. 


University  Press :  John  Wilson  &  Sou,  Cambridge. 


# 

LAW  l^-^^JTY 

'UNIVERSITY  Ca^'  '■.     ■-'IFORNIA 

LOS  ANGi^LES 

